Free speech is so important to the existence of a free society that the founders of this country enshrined the right to free speech as our constitution’s 1st amendment. The 1st amendment. Need I say more…?
Unfortunately, there are some in this country who are opposed to free speech. Their opposition to free speech may be rooted in the desire/need to control the thoughts of the general public (or more likely the typical voter) for their own ends. Or perhaps their desire is to see the world work in a way that they sincerely believe is best for all. However, attempts to limit speech in the past have led to suppression of the “opposition”, with dire results. Think not? Ask any WWII survivor who witnessed the suppression of opposition speech by Hitler’s stormtroopers and brown-shirts.
There are those who would argue something different; that in fact what is allowed to be said – rather than that not said at all – is what drives negative results. I would argue otherwise, and make the claim that if other voices are heard (rather than suppressed), in the end saner voices will prevail. In any event, the dilemma in attempting the suppression of “wrong” speech (over allowing competing viewpoints to be heard) is this: who exactly gets to decide what speech is allowed?
This is the dilemma faced by the founders. In their wisdom they decided that it was better for all voices to be heard rather than to trust a government to wield such an enormous power responsibly. I wholeheartedly agree with their assessment.
This has not stopped those who wish to control speech. Realizing that the government cannot limit speech (that pesky 1st amendment again…) they have instead taken to demand (under threat of regulation) that those who hold the means to speak (i.e.: the social media providers) limit the ability to disseminate speech that “they” deem hate speech, or simply speech that is divisive (it’s not like free speech is supposed to air opposing viewpoints or anything). Don’t be fooled; it is simply an end-run around the constitution and poses the same problem as noted before: who decides what speech is allowed?
The framers of our constitution were wise but imperfect people operating in a time very different from our own. However, they made a great effort to lay down a solid foundation upon which to build a modern, successful society. This foundation is enumerated in our constitution and its amendments, and we should be very leery of any attempt by our government to circumvent the same. Don’t fall for the demands to limit some speech via threat of regulation – it’s just an attempt to gain control over all speech.
And remember – when speech is limited, someone has to decide what is allowed. What do you think will happen when your opposition holds that power?
Yeah – that’s what I think, too.