Understanding What Freedom Of Speech Is And Isn’t

There’s an argument being passed around that freedom of speech isn’t a freedom to insult or offend. That argument is objectively and factually wrong. That’s exactly what freedom of speech is.

Freedom of speech is not intended to protect mainstream opinions. No constitutional protection is necessary to protect mainstream opinions. You never needed a law to protect your right to say that kittens are cute. Freedom of speech exists specifically to allow the taboo to be uttered and expressed, and in particular, to be expressed by marginalized people.

Being offended, on the other hand, is something you choose. Everybody sees the same things, hears the same things, perceives the same things. Some things you perceive go against your moral compass. This happens to everybody, every day. But each of us also chooses what to focus on in this neverending avalanche of impressions: if a person chooses to be offended by somebody else’s opinion, that’s exactly what it is – that’s a choice and that’s something that freedom of speech is not affected by or concerned with.

Freedom of speech is the right for idiots to be completely wrong, and that’s a good thing, because as history shows, it may turn out that those considered idiots were the ones in the right.

When people in the establishment express a non-mainstream opinion, they’re not ostracized from society because they’re influential, but the non-mainstream opinion is politely disregarded as if it never happened.

When social outcasts or other marginalized people express a mainstream opinion, everybody agrees and no social punishment is meted out. This isn’t perceived as dangerous, either.

It’s when the marginalized people say the dangerous things, that freedom of speech is needed, because there are no other restraints in society against punishing such people for breaking taboos. And it has happened again and again that they were the ones to be correct. So Freedom of Speech can be summarized as the right for idiots to be completely wrong, insulting, and offensive – because from time to time, they turn out to be in the right.

This is why privacy is crucial.

Some findings, opinions, and facts that may be correct are still so taboo that you can’t safely express them with your name attached, despite the judicial right to do so – there are still social penalties attached. It’s important to remember that Freedom of Speech is a right toward the government; it’s not a right toward your fellow people. Nobody is obliged to listen to you, work with you, or have lunch with you if they don’t want to – most social actions assume mutual consent, and the social penalties have always been high for people who break social taboos, even when their moral compass dictates they must.

Therefore, Freedom of Speech doesn’t exist in practice without the possibility of anonymity. And that ability to break taboos has led to most things that we consider “progress” in the rear view mirror today.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.