Guest Blog Post by Luca Colasanto
Why We Need Free Speech
It seems that in recent years Free Speech has become an issue in Canada, and for that matter, much of the Western World. Many would say that we need an absolutist approach to free speech, while others would say we should only have free speech for people holding certain views. While censors try to seem reasonable by saying things such as “freedom of speech, but only to an extent,” free speech, in the end, is only free if it is free for all.
Unfortunately there has been a false dichotomy set up by the censors. They claim that they only want to censor speech that is dangerous, such as hate speech (whatever that means.) It would appear that censors really only want to target people like holocaust deniers and racists in order to make sure that no one acts on these beliefs. I actually disagree with this paradigm. In fact, I think that the only way to stop things like hate speech are to have absolute freedom of speech.
Most of the violence in human history has been committed by governments, authoritarian governments to be exact. While it is noble for censors to not want a repeat of the holocaust, they should take note that it was the socialist German government, and not the German citizenry that killed so many Jews.
This is mainly a result of the fact that politicians tend to more be ideological than the citizens they are supposed to represent. Sure, there are some politicians that are only involved for power, but for the most part it is safe to say that politicians have an underlying philosophy that they think society should live by. In contrast, average citizens are far more pragmatic. As a result, democracy tends to have a very moderating affect on the ability of ideological politicians to enact their whims as law.
Notable socialist Benito Mussolini even lamented the fact that democracy tended to make it difficult to bring forth radical legislation. The fact that governments tend to be more radical and discriminatory than the citizens are is quite clear when you look at history. Blacks were able to have jobs and run business in both the United States and South Africa well before they had political rights. Authoritarian governments are responsible for the holocaust, gulags, La Cabana, imprisoning journalists, genocide in Rwanda, shutting down news stations, confiscating political materials, killing political opponents, and generally limiting political, economic and religious rights. What all these authoritarian regimes have in common is that they regulate free speech. While democracies are not perfect, they did lead the way in establishing more robust human rights, and making them more universal.
Now, you might think that the censors are really only targeting the very authoritarian ideals that I am criticizing. What we see empirically however is that democracies, with free speech, had strong “idea markets”. Basically, if citizens are privy to as much information as possible, and the widest array of views then it becomes difficult for radical ideas to take hold. In fact, the market of ideas is incredibly effective at weeding out ideas like racism or intolerance. If we really want these radical ideas marginalized, then the best way to do it is to publicly pit them against better ones. Pit eugenics against reproductive rights. Pit segregation against integration. The radicals will be denounced more quickly, but also more peacefully than any legislation ever can.
As a result, as a society we need to make sure that the market for ideas is strong and protected. This is the only way that we can temper the often hateful and discriminatory ideas that radical politicians are prone to have. A thoughtful editorial or book will win more hearts and minds than a law ever will. Myself, I’d prefer a society with a few racists and holocaust deniers where I would never be afraid to speak freely than one that had no racists and holocaust deniers, but where I would be afraid to publicly share my views. If you disagree, then please say so, so that as a society we can weed out the less useful idea.
