The Necessity To Speak Freely
What is it to speak? What is it to then speak freely? What is good speech or bad speech? What is hate speech? And if there exists such a thing as hate speech, do we have such a thing as love speech? Love speech! I have never heard the term used!
Yes, in this age, we hear an awful lot about speech–about what is to be allowed, what is to be published, what is to be celebrated, and what is to be censored. And, if there is an agreed-upon measure of censorship, it follows that some form of punishment ought to be dolled out to the many or few who break these rules––who have crossed the line and said the unthinkable!
The unthinkable! It is a nonsense term, “unthinkable”, and it gets to the crux, the big mistake that is made when it comes to the regulation of published words. It is thought, it is suggested, that if you disallow a certain speech, then you have therefore outlawed the thought itself.
If you can censor the words, you have censored the emotion, the action, the premises on which these words stand. To get rid of the words is to get rid of the idea. Linguists know this is false––as many languages do not have words for certain picky moments in life, but the language deals with it, an understanding has come about, and the concept still stands (John McWhorter gave an interesting example recently during a lecture, where he described the French as not having a clear phrasing for “sticking out”, but yet, the French must know the concept of irregularity).
The censorship of ideas that are unthinkable may slow down their syndication but does little to thwart the ideas themselves––ideas which, in some cases, grow heavier, take on the quality of contempt or anger, like a monster slowly growing in the dark. That is to say, the “energy” of an idea can never be fully suppressed, but only compresses, and becomes denser. In this way, even bad ideas need to see the light of day, so they can be thoroughly pulled apart, examined, refuted, or perhaps, in some wild cases, confirmed and put into action. Yes, some “bad” ideas may be good ones after all, when implemented properly.
But it is worth asking, whether or not we are actually in the moral realm, when regarding speech. We may fool ourselves into thinking about the qualities of speech as “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad”. Is the speech misinformation, disinformation––is it filled with “hate”? For one, so what if it is? Is it practical, reliable, and worth it to attempt to rid the world of hate? Perhaps it is better to let these ideas air out, and be exposed. We already have laws against violence, what else can we ask? Where does, all things considered, that “hate” actually go? It goes nowhere. It enters the black market, where again, it thrives unabated by debate, unconfronted by love or logic, unapproached by wisdom or a guiding hand.
Nevertheless, I say we are not in the business of speech being “good” or “bad”. That we are not, and never were, in the “moral realm”. When it comes to speech and its regulation, we are in the realm of bureaucracy, and legality. We are in the realm, truly, of those who wish to keep that status quo alive and well, and those who may have ideas, have thoughts, have speech that threaten the status quo. Anyone who tells you differently is likely to be on the side of the regulators. The ones who think that thoughts and expressions can be contained––ought to be contained, for the benefit of whoever, wherever is setting the parameters.
Hate cannot be expressly and clearly defined. Hatred for what is wrong and terrible in our world is not defined as hate. Like the word “compassion”, it develops an asymmetry to its subject. When a man reaches for his revolver to decimate an intruder it is not out of hatred for the intruder. It is out of compassion for his children sleeping in the next room. Hate and compassion cannot be defined, but the same people who believe it can be are the same people who will tell you exactly what it is and exactly what you are or not allowed to say. And if one is not allowed to say what they feel, to say what they think, they are authoritatively compelled. Compelled into silence! And we should see this as synonymous with compelled speech, in earnest.
Perhaps the world has always been on fire. It surely is today. Nobody can deny it. And the world, the humans that inhabit it, are searching for their words. With a lump in their throat, and a pain in the joints of their fingers, they are still typing, speaking, trying to give voice to the chaos that surrounds every man and woman. Every second forward we are thrusting deeper into the unknown. Every second forward we are more stultified, mesmerized, horrified, and inspired to give voice to our setting. This is why some writers are deemed the “voice of their generation” and some books “the novel of the times”. I believe to write and to think is to risk something.
Not only should we be wary of those that wish to save us from our own risks, we should be wary and rebellious of them and to their motives. Yes, there will be agitators, there will be jokesters, charlatans, demagogues, and jesters who are speaking freely as you and I should. Most of us, when we type or publish, will have said very little or nothing. Mostly, we think to think and write to write as if they were sports.
But we should not allow ourselves to be censored, or worse, to censor ourselves. There is a combination of words, a combination of phrases, and thoughts that may not get us out of our shared fate, may not provide any concrete solution, but every now and then, words come across us like a light beam, as pure and true as if sourced from the sun, words that could, if we choose to hear them, let in a little light, so that humanity is a little less in the dark. It is rare, but I would like to keep the door open. Throughout our history, how many of those that wrote and spoke those beams of light were cast into the confines of a jail cell? When this happens, they are not in that cell alone! All of humanity is rotting in there with them!
We are in need of our voices and all the streams of words available to us. To those that try to shut off the stream, I say you know not what you do. The monster grows!
JSV
2024
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
I always enjoy your thought-provoking writing, Judson.
The fact that Americans have to defend the first amendment is the result of insidious fear sponsored by those who are crying "save our democracy" at every turn. The only thing Americans have to counter this reign of fear is more speech and their vote.