Should Freedom of Speech Be Absolute?

The Slippery Slope of Censorship

This article assumes readers are well aware that governments in Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand are engaging in ever-increasing and stricter censorship and suppression of dissenting opinions - straight out of Orwell’s 1984 and Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. If any readers are unaware, the article Censorship vs Freedom of Thought and Speech gives the details of what has been happening over the past several years - and includes the myriad laws enacted by these governments to censor and suppress anything they don’t like.

My starting point for debating the pros and cons of censorship vs freedom of speech comes from Benjamin Franklin:

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”

"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.”

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

“Republics derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates."

- Benjamin Franklin

I consider these to be the most important and fundamental principles of all from societal, cultural and governance standpoints.

The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution is referred to as freedom of speech-religion-press. This amendment guarantees that government cannot infringe on or interfere with - in any way, shape or form - the right of citizens to practice any religion they believe in, speak their minds and opinions on any issue, or to have a free press.

Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have constitutional degrees of freedom of speech, but none as vigorous as in the U.S.

But since the inception of the United States, the question has always been: Is freedom of speech absolute? Meaning, can someone say anything they like - good or bad, right or wrong, factual or false, dangerous or beneficial, rational or insane, hateful or kind, insulting or praising?

This article presents a principle, a concept, an idea that initially might appear idiotic, absurd and even dangerous:

• Freedom of speech must be absolute - no exceptions, no limits, no censorship of any kind for any reason or justification. Let people say and write anything they like and let the chips fall as they may.

• I believe that such absolute freedom of speech would benefit society significantly, and result in a society and culture that is far more rational, prosperous, advanced and enlightened than we have today.

I invite readers to take a look at my reasoning in this article before dismissing this idea of absolute freedom of speech.

---

“Free speech is in trouble on both sides of the Atlantic”

“It’s been a troubling summer, on both sides of the Atlantic, for those of us who care about free speech.

“On 26 June, the US Supreme Court vacated a lower court judgment in Murthy v. Missouri that barred officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Surgeon General’s office from encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

“Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion that was joined by two other justices, highlighted the history of State-sponsored censorship unveiled in the case, and the stark implications of the majority ruling:

• ‘For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not comply with their wishes about the suppression of certain covid-19-related speech … The Court … permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.’

“But free speech is in trouble on both sides of the Atlantic.

“In the UK, Kier Starmer’s government is using recent civil unrest as an excuse to prosecute people for social media posts. In Ireland, the government is adamant it will strengthen its ‘hate speech’ legislation. And in the EU, the Internal Market Commissioner suggested an interview between Elon Musk and Donald Trump might fall foul of Europe’s Digital Services Act.”

- Report here

“EU Commissioner Thierry Breton Seems Determined to Scrap Free Speech in Europe”

- Report here

---

The Slippery Slope

There are many examples of why absolute freedom of speech could be considered idiotic, insane and dangerous, and therefore should be limited and not absolute.

• hate speech

• inciting others to commit violence

• the ‘yelling fire in a theatre’ example

• insulting people

• intentionally publishing misinformation and disinformation

Most people consider these examples as common sense reasons to practice some censorship and some restrictions on free speech. And I agree those reasons have a certain amount of validity - hence the dilemma.

Dilemma:

• a problem involving a difficult choice

• a problem or situation presenting two or more equally conclusive or valid choices, arguments or possible solutions

---

This is the dilemma we face: Should there be limits to freedom of speech; if so, what are they, who defines those limits and who decides when a line has been crossed. Those what and who questions create the dilemma.

Imposing any limits on freedom of speech - for any seemingly valid reason - is always a slippery slope.

Slippery Slope (figurative):

• a course of action that leads inevitably from one action or result to another with unintended consequences

• a course leading to disaster or destruction

• a dangerous and irreversible course

Once a government or institution or organization starts imposing even the lightest restrictions on free speech, they and people impacted by them are immediately thrown onto the top of a slippery slope. Why?

History has proven that once embarking down a slippery slope, unintended negative and harmful consequences will occur, and ever-increasing censorship and suppression will occur, and corruption will occur and grow, and false narratives and fraudulent agendas will take root and grow. This is a 100% certainty as true as the law of gravity; no exceptions.

Just as a snowball rolling down a snow-covered mountain builds into a destructive avalanche, so does starting down the slippery slope of imposing restrictions on free speech always results in greater and greater censorship, greater and greater suppression of truth, greater and greater adoption of false narratives and corrupt agendas. This is a fact and practically a law of human nature and political power.

Just as a woman can’t be a little bit pregnant, there cannot exist just a ‘little bit of limits’ on free speech. As soon as even one, small limit is placed, everyone involved immediately starts down the slippery slope - to the end results noted above.

Who Should Decide?

What limits to free speech are needed? How are they defined? This is the first dilemma. The slippery slope starts with the very first limit defined and placed. Again, once one limit is placed, more and more will follow as surely as an object that falls from the sky will crash to earth.

Who defines those limits? This is the second dilemma - and poses the greatest danger of all.

Most often, it’s governments who decide what restrictions are placed on speech. Unfortunately, government politicians and officials are nearly always corrupted or influenced to one degree or another by super-wealthy, powerful individuals or organizations who have their own self-serving agendas (‘global oligarchs and their operatives,’ see here, here and here.)

So, nearly always, the ‘arbiter’ of free speech restrictions is the unofficial partnership between governments and global oligarchs. Governments then enforce these restrictions through various means of censorship and punishment - coercion, laws and even military or police action.

And then we’re all on a fast toboggan flying down the slippery slope to a disastrous end of totalitarianism and fascism.

The most deadly component of the slippery slope phenomenon is that censorship always results in ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water.’ As governments and their citizens slide down the slippery slope, more and more factually accurate and truthful information gets censored and suppressed along with any targeted misinformation or disinformation. This is inevitable and the most harmful consequence of censorship - usually an intended consequence by those pushing a self-serving agenda.

Why is this inevitable? Because “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton). The partnership of governments and global oligarchs - which has existed throughout history on this planet - always leads to more and more corruption of government officials and adoption of false narratives/agendas that benefit only the oligarchs and government officials at the expense of everyone else. Again, another law of political power.

Every slippery slope is greased with corruption; corruption is an integral part and consequence of any slippery slope. Government officials and oligarchs don’t want their corruption and hidden agendas exposed; so censoring and suppressing any truthful and factual information that exposes corruption and false narratives becomes the primary (but hidden) motivation. “Protecting people against harmful misinformation, disinformation and hate speech” is the gaslighting propaganda used to justify such censorship.

Anyone who works to expose and oppose government corruption or incompetence is censored, vilified, falsely discredited, attacked through legal means or even imprisoned (or sometimes even killed).

All mainstream news media agencies, newspapers, TV and radio news are controlled and operated by global oligarchs (via global corporations they control such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, JP Morgan-Chase, Disney, Time-Warner, News Corp and a few others).

So all their ‘news and information’ is geared toward pushing the agendas and propaganda of oligarchs and their ‘partners’ in governments - while censoring and vilifying opponents and ‘dissidents.’ All mainstream news is a censorship/propaganda machine for global oligarchs and governments.

(This is so true, that a good rule of thumb for finding out what’s really true vs disinformation is to find out who is most censored, vilified, falsely discredited and attacked by governments and mainstream news. Then listen to and read what they have to say to get ‘the rest of the story.’ Then decide for yourself what’s true and false.)

So governments and their oligarch allies/masters secretly define ‘misinformation and disinformation’ as anything they don’t like and which interferes with their self-serving agendas. Publicly, however, they rant and rave and preach against ‘misinformation and disinformation to protect people from harm.’ (Excuse me while I vomit.)

People don’t need to be ‘protected’ from any written or spoken word, especially by governments who themselves engage in corrupt and harmful activities, and who routinely lie and label truthful information as ‘mis- and disinformation’ in an effort to hide their corruption and incompetence.

It’s the lack of truth that harms people most - far more than any hate/incitement speech or misinformation.

Unfortunately, the world is ruled more by false narratives and disinformation than from rational governance and truth. And it is limits placed on free speech that allow these false narratives to grow and rule.

Absolute free speech would dissolve all false narratives, hidden and corrupt agendas, disinformation, conflicts, upheavals and even wars.

Another Benefit of Absolute Free Speech

One of the biggest worries, concerns and challenges in life is determining what others truly think and believe.

Is he or she telling the truth or lying? What does John or Mary really think? What are my kids really thinking? Who are they really with? Is he or she being honest or just polite? What are their true intentions and motivations?

Most of us interact with several people every day. And we are lied to every day by someone - even if it’s ‘a little white social lie’ to keep from hurting your feelings.

As painful or uncomfortable as it might be, I prefer to know exactly and truthfully what another person I’m interacting with is thinking - good, evil, sweet, hateful, right, wrong, constructive, destructive, yes, no and so on.

If I know exactly what the other person is thinking and intending, I can’t be fooled. I won’t make a mistake with that person. I won’t be led down the wrong path. I’ll make the right decisions and take the correct actions. I won’t be harmed by them if I know their intentions.

If the person hates, I want to know that. I don’t want them to be forced to hide their feelings because of censorship or ‘laws against hate speech.’

If a person is psychotic, I want to know that. If a person is pure evil, I want to know. And on and on.

Censorship allows people to hide their true thoughts, feelings and intentions. This can be dangerous to others.

Let people say whatever they want. Then we know where they stand, and can’t be fooled or harmed by them.

Truth - The Universal Solvent

Let’s circle back to the valid reasons to engage in censorship noted earlier:

• hate speech

• inciting others to commit violence

• the ‘yelling fire in a theatre’ example

• insulting people

• intentionally publishing misinformation and disinformation

Hate speech is now defined to mean anything the government doesn't like, and anything that exposes government corruption or incompetence.

Or anything that shines the light of truth on false narratives and hidden agendas.

“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire” has been used ad nauseam (referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome) as an example that free speech cannot be absolute. This is a somewhat absurd cliche, because there are common sense laws against placing people in danger or causing people harm; this has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech.’

Governments, global oligarchs and international organizations such as the UN, WHO and WEF publish the most disinformation on the planet - yet scream and preach the loudest that “misinformation and disinformation are the world’s greatest and most serious threats!” What they really mean is that anything that exposes their false narratives and agendas must be suppressed and attacked.

My position is there should be no limits or restrictions of free of speech; free speech should be absolute. Absolute means even the above negative categories should be allowed. People should be allowed to say or write or post any hateful things they want. People can post whatever they want to incite others to violence. They can post all the insults, misinformation and disinformation to their hearts’ content.

Why? Because to restrict any of these starts society down the slippery slope described above - with the worst negative consequences being that too much truthful information and facts are censored and suppressed.

Better to have a little hate/incitement speech and a lot of truth than no hate/incitement speech and too little truth - because truth overcomes lies, hate and conflicts. Hiding truth causes conflicts to emerge and grow. And any censorship or restrictions on free speech will hide some or all truths on any given issue or subject.

To restrict anything like the above categories of speech/writings will result in throwing the baby out with the bath water - truthful, factual, beneficial information will be inadvertently or intentionally suppressed in the process of ‘protecting people from bad words.’

To place any restrictions on free speech will allow corrupt agendas and false narratives to take root and grow.

Placing any limits on free speech will automatically and inevitably translate and morph into restricting and censoring anyone and anything that exposes and opposes any corruption, criminality, incompetence or even treasonous activities.

The vast majority of people are rational enough not to be influenced or swayed by the above categories of ‘bad’ speech. If ALL speech, opinions and information are allowed, the vast majority of people will be able to differentiate between rational, reasonable opinions and venomous hate speech or incitements to violence or disinformation. The vast majority of people will be able to distinguish truth from fiction.

Only when information is filtered and people have access only to limited information and opinions, are poor decisions made or people can be negatively influenced by hate/incitement speech.

Yes, a small percentage of the population is crazy and easily influenced by hate speech or incitements to violence. But these can be easily handled and any potential harm minimized if everyone has access to all information.

The small percentage of lunatics would have no more power or influence than annoying gnats if freedom of speech were absolute. Lunatics gain power and influence only when speech is censored or restricted in any way.

Also, governments and organizations with agendas will falsely label as ‘hate speech’ anything they don’t agree with or anything that opposes their agendas. They define ‘hate speech’ as anything they hate.

Truth is the universal solution to all problems, conflicts and conditions. As noted above, restricting written or spoken words in any way always results in certain amounts of truth being censored and suppressed.

Truth conquers all. Truth dissipates storms and chaos.

Problems, conflicts, violence and wars occur only in the absence of full, unrestricted communication of truth and facts.

The lack of truth is infinitely more harmful than the presence of any misinformation or disinformation.

The more truth available to people, the better decisions they will make and the better their lives will be.

The more truth is available, the less corruption, fewer false narratives and fewer fraudulent, self-serving agendas will exist.

These all-powerful and fundamental principles - along with all the slippery slope phenomenon - are why I believe freedom of speech must be absolute with no limits of any kind.

Enlightenment and education are the keys to handling and reducing genuine hate speech and incitements to violence - not censorship or restrictions of free speech.

And the key to enlightenment and education is allowing all opinions, ideas and information to be expressed and available to everyone.

The more opinions and ideas a society allows - even the crazy, hateful and disgusting ones - the more enlightened and advanced it becomes. The more opinions and ideas are allowed, the less impact and influence the hateful and crazy ones will have; these quickly dissipate in a truly enlightened society.

As Franklin said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”

In order to achieve wisdom and an enlightened, advanced society, freedom of speech must be absolute with no limits, restrictions or censorship.

Troubles in the United Kingdom

The UK is currently being torn apart by various stresses and forces. The government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has declared war on violent protesters - and anyone posting anything on social media that hints at inciting violence.

Police in the UK have already rounded up and arrested dozens of people for posting messages on social media that the government doesn’t like.

I understand why any government would want to stamp out anything that incites others to violence. I support the idea and right to protest; but I strongly oppose the use of any violence disguised as ‘protesting.’ The violence becomes the story and focus of attention, and the issue being protested is shoved to the side or ignored altogether. And violence always results in innocent people being harmed or killed on multiple levels.

But allow me to apply my position of absolute free speech to the UK situation.

The Starmer government is attacking the wrong target. Violent protesters are a symptom of the real problem; the real problem is that the current and previous UK governments have been thoroughly corrupt and treasonous, selling out the UK and its citizens to global agendas such as UN Agenda 2030 - in particular, the fraudulent climate agendas and the goal of ‘migration,’ which is a euphemism for allowing invasions of nations in Europe and the United States by tens of millions of illegals.

Previous UK governments also caused enormous harm to the nation and its citizens from its destructive and insane measures enacted during the falsely-inflated covid ‘pandemic’ (see here, here and here).

This combination of harmful and even treasonous actions by past and present UK governments created a cauldron of super-heated conditions that finally exploded in violence over the past couple of weeks.

Over the past several years, these UK governments engaged in massive censorship and suppression of information and views that conflicted with ‘official’ (but false) narratives - namely covid, its mandated mRNA products fraudulently marketed as ‘vaccines', destructive climate programs and opening borders wide to millions of illegals.

If there were no censorship, no restrictions or limits on free speech of any kind, no discrediting or attacking of anyone who disagreed with official narratives, no deleting and banning of posts and videos on social media, then there would be no conflicts or violence occurring today. In fact, the UK would be far more prosperous than it is now. Why?

Problems, conflicts, violence and wars occur only in the absence of full, unrestricted communication of truth and facts.

So much truth has been suppressed as a result of all the censorship practiced by governments, that lies and gaslighting propaganda ruled, and people were fed a steady diet of disinformation which prevented them from knowing the full truth and taking correct actions in their lives.

Sure, with absolute freedom of speech there would be a few more posts containing hate speech and inciting people to violence. But these would have been ignored by all except for a tiny percentage of lunatics, and would have died in a whimper instead of exploding in violence - because truth conquers hate, conflict, violence and misunderstandings.

In other words, governments engaging in more and more censorship and restrictions on free speech (1) created the adverse conditions in the UK in the first place and (2) caused the explosion into violence.

The UK government caused the problems and conflicts, then poured gasoline on the fire it created by trying to suppress free speech more and more.

Summary

I believe that absolute freedom of speech - with no censorship or restrictions of any kind - benefits society, and results in a society and culture that is far more rational, prosperous, advanced and enlightened than we have today.