The Argument Against Free Speech

“Somewhere in America there is a child sitting at his mother’s computer reading the homepage of the KKK’s website - and that’s open to the public - but that child will have never read To Kill A Mockingbird because his school has banned it for its use of the ‘N’ word”.

Young poets Belissa Escobedo, Rhiannon McGavin, and Zariya Allen’s Somewhere in America acutely describes the hypocrisy surrounding censorship of speech and expression in America. Being among the most prominent ideals upon which the ideological foundations of liberalism are built, the extent to which speech, assembly and association should be protected is often questioned, especially when challenged by the persistence of fascism in liberal democratic countries. The notion that all speech can and should be protected from censorship or persecution, however, paves the way to the reversal - not strengthening - of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Free speech absolutism - that is, the idea that any form of expression, regardless of its validity or ideological nature, must be protected - falsely claims that exceptions to the protection of speech is inherently anti-democratic, and creates a dangerous precedent for broader censorship and policing of expression and thought. How can a nation, therefore, ensure that every potential ideological perspective maintains the same protections and level of exposure, lest any opinion or worldview be repressed or dismissed? Despite the inclinations of many constitutional fundamentalists, the idea that all political expression can be protected is, frankly, idealistic and impractical.

Although free speech absolutists claim not to disadvantage any ideology, the very act of remaining neutral and allowing the perseverance of fascism and other predatory belief systems is a choice in and of itself, and a choice which suppresses the voice of their victims. As the modern proverb goes, you can say ‘all are welcome’, but if both wolves and sheep are welcome, you’re only going to get wolves. In other words, the tolerance of all inherently limits the freedom of some, and therefore a choice must be made considering which freedoms a society protects, and which it restricts.

Though many would argue that the objection to this zero-sum interpretation of freedom is widespread and that its application would shift societies towards authoritarianism, the reality is that the majority of liberal democratic democratic governments and the private enterprises within them already enforce this type of protective censorship. In the years following 9/11, Western nations compromised unprecedented amounts of civilian liberties, and enhanced the suppression and prosecution of speech and association with Islamic extremist organisations that had already been in place, with absolutely no protest from so called freedom absolutists.

As a society, we have generally accepted the benefits of banning certain ideological perspectives from mainstream media, political platforms, and even private gatherings. America’s resistance to banning white supremacy, nazism and other forms of fascism and hate speech, therefore, doesn’t lie within a fundamental belief in freedom of speech, but rather a larger percentage of society that continues to embrace or benefit from, to some extent, the principles proposed by right wing extremists.

A recent debate around censorship within major social media platforms emphasized this element of free speech deliberations when organizations like Twitter were pressured to treat white supremacism with the same strict guidelines it uses for other forms of terrorism and violent speech. An artificial intelligence technician told Vice News that although Twitter has the technology to practically eradicate white supremacist content on its site, the backlash would be overwhelming as “content from Republican politicians could get swept up by algorithms aggressively removing white supremacist material”, along with an unmanagable volume of content being automatically flagged for review.

Contrary to the argument of free speech defenders like the ACLU, allowing the public “to see, in plain sight, those who are infected with the virus of bigotry” only leads to their dissolution when their principles are universally condemned while racism, clearly, has not yet met such a fate in the majority of the Western world. Just as Islamic-American youth continue to be vulnerable to Islamic State recruitment propaganda, reactionary movements will maintain the potential to grow and spread as long as they are given the platform to do so.

For a country that persistently boasts its freedom and equality, America’s reluctance to recognize white supremacists as terrorist organizations threatens these principles with their very possible dissolution. Through the actions its government - along with many other liberal democracies - has taken against Islamic extremism, communism, and illiberal ideologies alike, America has made clear that its hesitancy is not toward censorship itself, but rather a hesitancy to condemn the ethnocentric principles ingrained in its foundation. Until America follows in the footsteps of many of its Western allies and commits to a broader persecution of fascism, it will continue to be a breeding ground for the white-power movements that increasingly threaten the existence of the free world.