“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” You are probably familiar with this statement. It comes from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which, true to the name, is basically a list (but by no means an exhaustive list, according to the Ninth Amendment) of the rights and freedoms that we enjoy as citizens of the United States.
Part of what made this country so great was, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” This idea was revolutionary for its time. The concept of unalterable individual rights that are granted by God to all human beings, rather than alterable privileges that are granted by a government official (such as a king) acting in place of God to the subjects whom he pleases, was not exactly the norm throughout human history.
Integral to human liberty is freedom of speech. Without free speech, other rights and freedoms become hollow. You cannot truly have freedom of religion without free speech, for free speech is necessary for free religious expression. You cannot have a free press without free speech, for a free press is an extension of free speech. You get the point.
Since the Bill of Rights was adopted, free speech has become the norm, not only in the United States but in the West in general. Yet in the 21st century, the idea of truly free speech is fading out of fashion. Yes, nearly everyone still claims to support free speech. Unless it is hate speech, offensive, misinformation, disinformation, racist, sexist, or homophobic. The list goes on.
The enemy of free speech is not government officials in Washington, D.C., or a state capital. It is “We the People.” We develop categorical exceptions to free speech so that we do not have to hear viewpoints that we do not like, and then we vote for politicians who will make those categorical exceptions law (enter censorship). And of course, it is always our speech that should be protected, and that of other, despicable people’s speech that should be censored.
Now, with all of that being said, threats, perjury, and libel are examples of speech that are not protected under free speech. Yes, you have a constitutional right to free speech. However, the right to free speech does not mean you have the right to threaten someone, to lie under oath, or to slander someone’s reputation, just as the right to free exercise of religion does not mean you could sacrifice your children to Moloch.
Another aspect of free speech is this: not all free speech is pleasant. People sometimes say things that are very disagreeable, or even downright hateful or bigoted. In the 21st century, it has become easier than ever to share speech; and easier than ever to censor it. The temptation is there to censor “hate speech” for the common good. We must be very careful about this. Yes, there are a lot of things that people say that I do not like, but I believe they should have the right to say it. The right to free speech includes the right to say things that are hateful or bigoted. Free speech is a right, not a privilege.
Hate speech is not even a definable concept. What is hateful to you may sound just fine to me. Let me give you an example. For my undergraduate degree, I attended a public university. My classmates knew that I was a Christian. We sometimes had class discussions about homosexuality or transgender issues. I was told by several classmates that my belief that there are only two genders and that homosexuality is wrong was hate speech. I was even told that the Bible was hate speech. If we censor hate speech, who gets to define what constitutes hate speech? Yes, people sometimes say things that make my blood boil with how hateful and callous it is (and as Christians, I would hope that we would hold ourselves to a higher standard), but it is still their right to say it. However, your legal right to free speech is not going to protect you from the social consequences of what you say; your words do have an impact, and not always in the way you want.
Rather than simply blaming government officials from a party that we do not like for the erosion of free speech, we ought to be introspective and look at ourselves. What is our immediate reaction when we see someone post something on social media that we consider “terrible?” Do we think that someone can say something so bad that they should be censored? If so, what kind of speech do we support censorship for? What would happen if our speech became censored for the same reasons that we would censor someone else? The problem with censoring any kind of speech (even speech that is considered misinformation or hate speech) is that no speech becomes protected. If we do not protect all free speech, we will have no free speech.
In the era of the internet and social media, government censorship has never been easier to accomplish. In the 21st century, we have to be intentional about supporting free speech and opposing government censorship, particularly in the online sphere. Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Free speech is fragile. Particularly as young people, we must face a simple but profound question: are we going to do our part to protect all free speech for future generations?
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of 51勛圖厙 University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, 51勛圖厙 University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.