Freedom of speech -the basics (long read)

 Any time freedom of speech comes up online, some "progressive" guy will come up with a couple of predictable -and quite incorrect- counters. (Weird, how the Left is now anti-freedom of expression, but things can change dramatically, I guess. While a couple of years back it was the Left that was championing this fundamental principle, now they are the ones trying to sniffle it out. Ironic, to say the least.)

So be prepared for this guy

Ackchyually, you are not American, so freedom of speech does not apply to you.

Ackchyually, freedom of speech is only the First Amendment, and it only protects you against the government. A private business can do what they want. (Weird how the Left became pro-business all of a sudden. Although since Elon Musk bought Twitter, this has subdued somewhat.)

Ackchyually, the UK does not have freedom of speech because it is not explicitly said in the law.

Ackchyually, it is freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. (I talked about this one before...)

And the rest.

Well. These guys thought they found some technicality, and they are trying to argue that the freedom to express opinions freely is something that does not apply to a specific case (normally the trans debate or the issue of fundamentalist Islam and mass migration).

Freedom of speech in Western democracies

These people forget that the freedom of speech, the freedom to offend is the very cornerstone of our modern, Western democracy. I guess this is what happens when you teach people to hate Western civilization, but I digress. You can't have democracy without this very idea- the freedom to clash opinions, the marketplace of ideas.

I can't believe I have to state it, but here you go. The freedom of speech is important for several reasons:

Individual Liberty: In democratic societies, individuals have the right to express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas without fear of government censorship or reprisal. This freedom is fundamental to individual liberty and autonomy, allowing people to participate in public discourse, criticize the government, advocate for change, and pursue personal development.

Pluralism and Diversity: Freedom of speech fosters pluralism and diversity by allowing for the expression of different viewpoints, perspectives, and ideologies without fear of reprisal. In a democratic society, diverse voices and opinions contribute to robust public debate, enriching the marketplace of ideas and leading to more informed decision-making.

Accountability and Transparency: Freedom of speech serves as a check on government power and promotes accountability and transparency in governance. The ability of citizens to freely criticize and scrutinize government actions helps to expose corruption, abuse of power, and violations of human rights, ensuring that those in authority remain accountable to the people.

Innovation and Progress: Free speech encourages innovation and progress by providing a conducive environment for the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of knowledge. In a society where individuals are free to challenge existing norms, question orthodoxies, and propose new solutions, innovation flourishes, leading to advancements in science, technology, culture, and society.

Democratic Participation: Freedom of speech is essential for meaningful democratic participation, as it enables citizens to engage in political discourse, participate in civic activities, and advocate for their interests and values. By allowing individuals to express their political opinions and mobilize support for various causes, free speech facilitates democratic decision-making and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

I hope this little list shows how freedom of speech is not only a fundamental human right but also a fundamental pillar of modern Western democracy, essential for promoting individual freedom, democratic governance, social progress, and the flourishing of democratic societies. This is not a 'mere' law, that "you can speak freely". It is an underlying principle of every single facet of Western democracies.

Freedom of speech in the UK

So you say the UK does not have freedom of speech? Well, you are ignorant. (Never seen so many people expressing their ignorance in the full belief of their intellectual superiority than lately online in discussions about the Scottish hate crime law. More on that later.)

Newsflash: the UK does have freedom of speech enshrined in its laws. It is a fundamental aspect of the UK's legal system, although it is not explicitly codified in a single document like a constitution. Instead, it is protected through a combination of common law principles, statutes, and international treaties.

Freedom of expression is enshrined in various laws and legal instruments, including the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain limitations that are necessary in a democratic society, such as national security, public safety, and the prevention of disorder or crime. So that's one.

Additionally, the common law tradition in the UK recognizes and protects the right to freedom of expression through judicial decisions that uphold this principle. Courts in the UK have consistently affirmed the importance of free speech and have struck down laws or governmental actions that unduly restrict it. So anyone who claims the in the UK you have no freedom of speech is an ignorant moron who does not even understand their own country's basic legal framework. This is when you realize how far the educational system had fallen.

Closing

I hope this served a useful primer of what freedom of speech is, and what it means for us, why it is vital. Any and all attempts to stifle it will eventually lead to the death of democracy -as it had in many, many cases before. I guess I have a different viewpoint than the edgelords growing up in a comfy Western democracy, but the Stalinist terror of the '50s, the soft dictatorship of the '60s-'70s-'80s are still very much a living memory where I came from. Well, in Scotland, now they have a chance to try this utopia out. Can't wait to see how they like living in a snitch-culture, where a malicious individual will be able to wreck your life, bringing down the full force of the police on you (while they ignore most burglaries and thefts). I also wonder what the next election will bring.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence - the most idiotic thing you can say in an educated crowd

There are several arguments to justify not taking part in a debate or trying to censor other viewpoints, which I will address in another post, but this post is only about this one particular "thought".

You hear this often from people who claim that there is no such thing as "cancel culture", and justify people losing their jobs, their positions, getting in trouble with the police and having a social backlash for saying that does not agree with their "progressive" views with saying "well, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences". But. This statement is incredibly stupid if you spend just one minute thinking about it. And highlight what the issue is, here's a similar quote.  

"There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech"

Idi Amin

And just who is this Idi Amin? A prominent anti-racist, perhaps? A progressive icon of identity politics? An esteemed gender studies author?

Well... Not exactly. He is your stereotypical African dictator from the '60s-'70s with coups, murder, torture, child soldiers and fancy uniforms. (With a possible death toll of 300 000 if you ignore all the civil wars he was responsible for.)

I used to make the point that if the sentence in the title was true, in that case even Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and East Germany had freedom of speech. After all, you could shout that "comrade Stalin can suck my dick" -you were absolutely free to do so. This is the logic of these people. The consequences would be there, obviously, but the speech itself was free. In the case of telling Stalin to perform autofellatio, it would be a bullet in the back of your head, but you can die in the safe knowledge that the speech was free. The consequence was there, though. This, as the real world example of Idi Amin shows just, an empty play with words. We all understand what freedom of speech means. Obviously there are limits -and it is always a matter of debate where those limits exactly are- but the whole idea is that you can only take part in the "marketplace of ideas" if you do not have to be afraid.

And "consequences" do make one to be afraid. Having to think of consequences when you try to say that trans women are not women does stifle speech. (I got banned from reddit for saying this. In Scotland you can get the police coming to your house if you post this. You can lose your job for this.) Having to worry about your family when you decide whether to say your opinion about something in your workplace, at your university, in social media is exactly the opposite of what the marketplace of ideas should be. It is self-imposed censorship due to the fear of consequences. In other words: the exact opposite of "freedom of speech".

The UK's non-crime hate database... freedom of speech indeed

What an Orwellian idea - have a database for "non-crime hate incidents" that do not meet any of the standards that would constitute them as crimes. This is for speech perceived as ‘motivated by a hostility’ to race, gender, or other protected categories. 

Anything and everything can fall under this category. The sarcastic question of "Are you deaf?", stating ideas about gender and trans ideologies which do not fall within the "accepted" dogma (like "trans women are not women"), any criticism of feminist ideas... you get the gist. Anything and everything someone perceives as hateful can be logged - and the police has no obligation to inform the person in question that he or she is in some sort of database. No mechanism of appeal, no way of getting removed from this database. After all, it is not a criminal database, right, so we do not have to abide those pesky rule of law stuff. Due process? Getoutta here! It is not a crime procedure so why bother?

So while technically there is free speech -good luck daring to voice any of your opinions. If you end up in a database, who is to say what the consequences would be? You need a background check for your job? Well... good luck. Your employer finds your name in a database? Well... good luck. Want to appeal or challenge the process? Well... good luck.

Not to mention the main issue here: this goes against anything and everything liberal democracies should stand for. This is literally thought policing. In the United Kingdom. Not in Soviet Russia, not in East Germany, not in North Korea. In the middle of the "Free World".

It was surprisingly easy to attack the core values of liberal democracy. All the dystopian books and movies got it wrong. You do not even need a crisis for this. You can just do it. Wannabe autocrats, take note...