What Free Speech?

Does anyone you know really believe in free speech?  By that I mean as an applied philosophy, rather than just as an intellectual concept.  I'm not sure I know anyone who does.  Let's consider this for a moment.  The term "free speech" has been bantered about quite a bit recently, and as most terms in the political lexicon, its meaning becomes more ambiguous with each utterance.  It's being defined by different factions in different ways, so how do we know what we're talking about when we debate the concept of "free speech?"

Does free speech include vile, invective or disgusting language?  Or perhaps profane rants and calls for violence?  How about such no-no's as advocating death or annihilation?  Or maybe just biases and hate of one group by another?  Is any of that free speech?  Does free speech in a democratic and free society allow for any or all of those things?  I think it does.  And it should.

The immediate reaction most will have to that pronouncement is that we can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.  Why?  The nature of free speech is that one can express oneself fully and completely, and that's an admirable concept.  But there is no provision that someone else be protected from any reaction to that speech whatsoever, including outrage, offense, disgust or even terror.  So it would seem - in the purest sense of the concept - that one has the right to express oneself through the freedom of speech, but others are in no way obligated to listen.  

I would submit that any abridgement of pure and unadulterated free speech is a form of censorship.   Here's why.  The notion that speech - of any kind, but particularity political speech - should be moderated is, to me, utter nonsense.  Who is it who moderates?  What moral authority do moderators have to quell opinions, or even biases and phobias?  Have the moderators no opinions, preferences or biases of their own?  And as such, why do those opinions trump my own?   You can see how easily censorship rears its ugly head at the very instance of speech moderation.  A most notable example is the less-than-subtle censorship in the form of anti-conservative biases prevalent in the mainstream media.

The Internet has changed the way we act as a society in many ways.  Opinions are sent though cyberspace in an instant, and reactions are returned just as fast.  Sensitive souls - yes, I mean snowflakes - may take umbrage or offense, and demand that "something be done" about all that opinionatin' goin' on.  Rather than ignore the offending remark, they instead seek censorship of the offender by some higher authority.  That'll show 'em.  Even Facebook has twisted itself into a moral and legal pretzel in trying to moderate "hate speech" among its now two billion-plus users.  But it's a waste of effort, because hate speech is free speech.

Should Black Lives Matter be allowed to call all white people racists and should be killed?  Should the sharia supremacists be allowed to call for the destruction of all non-Islamic civilizations?  Should skinheads be allowed to denounce homosexuals and Jews?  Should we allow feminists to advocate the breakup of the traditional nuclear family?  Haters gonna hate.  So what?  The answer, in a democratic and free society, is clearly yes for all of these.  But when rhetoric is acted upon, the law has a legal and  moral obligation to respond.  One may say what one wants, but actions are still guided by laws and have consequence.

Some of us grew up in a time when "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was more than a just schoolyard rhyme.  It was, and still is, a philosophy which is sorely needed today.  So get over being offended.  Say what you will.  Ignore what you dislike.  But don't censor "them," for "they" might just censor you.  If one takes exception to this across-the-board approach to freedom of all speech, however offensive or agitating it may be, then one doesn't truly believe in freedom of speech.  

And that, by definition, is censorship.