Free Speech or Cheap Talk

Free speech is rather fundamental to liberty and it has been at the centre of a fair bit of news recently. Indeed, this very blog is possible with the luxury of this precious freedom. But, like with most things, the term is not as straightforward as some may think. We don’t get to say anything we want due to laws, manners or tradition. Try telling your mother something outrageous and you’ll get clipped round the ear. As with the word democracy, which gets owned across the political spectrum (East Germany’s formal name was the German Democratic Republic but their democracy was based on Rosseau’s philosophy of the general will, which argued only an elite is fit and able to express the collective will of the masses), free speech is similarly fought over. With some irony, factions battle over their ‘truth’ and the right to say whatever they like to further their cause, be that a half-truth, a falsehood or something vulgar. I don’t know anyone who likes to be lied to or sworn at, and this is not what we fight for when defending free speech. But equally, if we restricted speech to anything that didn’t cause offense to someone, somewhere, then we’d be competing with the Trappist Monks (I apologise to Trappist Monks offended by this and am more than happy to listen to your objections in person). Of course, some will say, the unpleasant is the price you pay for all those other utterable freedoms: the ability to criticize, to challenge the status quo, to stand alone when everyone is telling you you’re wrong, or to write about the meaning of free speech. But the reason it has recently become such a fractious topic is because of a revolutionary change in how we communicate: social media.

Social media has become a platform empowering the individual to present their inner most thoughts and feelings, no matter how trivial, with little fear of consequence, and that is a very strange thing in social interaction terms. All social activities have evolved over generations and, generally speaking, we restrain our speech to suit and respect the environment. When you visit your grandma in the nursing home, you don’t turn the air blue with foul language; when presenting for your business you aim to impress, putting on your most respectful tone and demonstrating your intelligence. For a romantic dinner over candle light, you’ll try all in your power to appear funny, knowledgeable and sophisticated, avoiding talk of bodily functions or hairy moles. At university you might stray into the taboo with the debating society, arguing one side of a contentious issue while politely listening to the other. Only, perhaps, when down the pub with your mates do you colour the air with fruity anecdotes and risqué jokes, unless there’s a new face in the crowd, when you’ll restrain yourself a little, testing the water, before playing the cheeky chappie. Why do we behave such? Well, our social radar adjusts to recognise the situation and we don’t like upsetting our companions when they look us in the eyes or deliver instant retribution for a slight and might eject us from the ‘tribe’. Society acts as a natural regulator, because we belong to it or want to belong to it. This handbrake only comes off when our inhibitions are diminished and this can occur when power (the abuse of power), or alcohol/drugs are added to the equation. The all-powerful despot can scream and shout, curse and insult, with fear preventing the underlings responding with anything other than compliance and a shiver; while the drunk fires off words to shame them in the cold light of a hangover. For the former, there are no immediate consequences for their actions (their comeuppance might arrive with time) and, for the latter, no thought of the consequences. Those boisterous lads down the pub are a mix of the two, over empowered by feeling safe in the company of their peers and fuelled by king fluid (multiply this by ten for a football crowd!). They seek to outdo and impress with ever more ribald stories, but transfer them to a public setting, such as a TV chat show, and it is exposed for what it is, rude, offensive and disgraceful, and society won’t allow it.

What social media has created is a new environment, controlled by money-making industries, who crave subscribers to bring in the revenue, and have said, we want you to use our platform to speak to your grandma in her nursing home, to show off your talents to potential new bosses, share your love for your partner, or have a laugh with your mates whether drunk or not. Sounds good, eh? But it’s like meeting your granny round the table in a pub set at the heart of a football ground, while you’re pitching a business idea and listening to a rude joke from your mates. Soon, the boisterous prat who’s downed eight pints is insulting your gran, while the businessman is calling you an uncouth lowlife because he thought you were laughing at him and not the joke, while your mates wolf whistle at your girlfriend, who storms off when your gran comments on her wonky teeth, all the while the crowd you’ve never met are chanting support or insults. The normal environmental boundaries of respect don’t exist, nor the social rules to provide order, and the right to say what you want, when you want to, is now a dangerous thing.

Leaving a comment on a social media platform can be an abstract process. You are addressing no one; you are addressing millions. It is like throwing a message in a bottle into a vast ocean, but the difference is you know which beach it will washup on, if not who will read it. When the recipient finds the bottle, they don’t know where it came from or who sent it, but they experience all the same emotions on reading it as though you said it to their face. Imagine a hundred bottles washing up and half tell you you’re wonderful and the other half inform you you’re an idiot. Neither sounds a particular healthy social experience, because strangers just don’t come out of the blue to praise or insult in normal circumstances. But because our minds feel the same sensation to normal social connection, we crave the ‘likes’ and work to build up ethereal followers, while trolls dispatch their poison because pressing ‘send’ doesn’t trigger the same sensation of having a social connection - all they see is the empty ocean.

Cancel culture is just as worrying as the vitriol of a thug or extremist. It is that crowd in the pub/football ground turning on granny because it suddenly went silent when she mentioned your girlfriend’s wonky teeth. No one else was meant to hear, certainly not the girlfriend; it was just a subjective viewpoint. But now the mob owns the narrative and gran is fed to the wolves. Fear now dominates the venue and no one ever mentions teeth again! Free speech is stifled. Of course, lots of people foolishly speak their mind to the worldwide web and wonder why others turn on them, but imagine how something like this would be handled in a traditional social arrangement. You’d have a quiet word with gran, ask her not to be so blunt in future and apologise to the blossom of your eye, then give both a big kiss on the cheek. If you said something inappropriate in the work place, your manager would have a word, maybe issue a warning and, if behaviours didn’t improve, you might find yourself sacked, but a process would be followed to determine context and both sides of the story etc. A single faux pas on social media can turn out to be the epitaph on your social gravestone. The golden rule is don’t say anything on social media you wouldn’t say in polite company, but if you have no reputation to lose, what is there to hold you back? There are laws to protect against slander and libel but the law has a flaw: it is expensive. The poor man can’t afford to seek restitution, while the ultra-rich can either take a hit or afford to drag out proceedings until beyond the price range of a plaintive. So, beware those with deep pockets championing free speech, while sharing unfounded views.

The tricky thing is defining the threshold for offense. On one level, it seems straightforward: if someone is upset by something, it is offensive. But, of course, you can’t function to the lowest common denominator, and one man’s simple cartoon is another man’s blasphemy. There is a big difference between being firm, robust or forthright in what we say and being rude or threatening. Intent plays a big part but it’s not everything. If someone is intent on ridiculing a politician’s policies it is termed satire, and that is healthy in a free society. Again, we can take guidance from our traditional social interactions. Two people locked in a room together with polar beliefs have a choice to go to ‘war’ over their differences or find a method of disagreeing, while respecting each other. It is in there best interests to get along. If arguments are rational, while each avoids personal insults, then there is a chance at harmony. In time they might decide to steer clear of a contentious issue or even enjoy the rich debate and appreciate elements of the other’s point of view, respect driving both options. If one is intent on upsetting the other, their language will take on a particular hue: dismissive, aggressive and provocative. It is possible to spot the difference and this is true on social media too.

As I’ve written about in a previous blog, liberty can only exist in conjunction with responsibility, and that is what’s lacking on social media. Plenty of people post responsibly and respectfully but you don’t have to (Manchester United are rubbish - see, even I can’t help myself sometimes!). Rules apply in all areas of our life, many to protect our freedom, many unwritten, so if someone lies or abuses another, companies should hold them to account and take sensible and measured action, be that the quiet word or a formal process (no kiss on the cheek is required). Even the Wild West had sheriffs to bring some law and order. It isn’t about banning points of view we disagree with, but rather establishing social standards with which to have them: making social media sociable. In this spirit, I, therefore, retract my previous statement about Manchester United on the grounds it was crass, subjective abuse. It would be better if I simply stated, Manchester United are 12th in the league at the halfway point of the 2024/25 season (fact).

So, enjoy the privilege of your free speech but use it responsibly and respectfully or there will be a price to pay in the long run.

Nathaniel M Wrey