Untangling Freedom Of Speech

Untangling “Freedom of Speech”

What are the factors to consider in a commuication act (e.g. Speech)?

Here are some possible answers:

• The parties involved (e.g. their existing social power in society)
• Access to a right of reply
• The truth of the claims
• The harm/benefit the speech causes. e.g. reputational damage to the individual, how it affects social attitudes toward a group. For example, some claims may reproduce social stereotypes, which in turn are used to justify the (mis_treatment of that group. For example, if a comment plays into existing sexist or racist tropes.
• The harm/benefit limiting that speech causes; e.g. banning offensive cartoons at a national level may limit the ability for a cartoonist to use satire to make fun of those in power.

Rules can exist at different scales. e.g. at a country-level, more speech acts ought to be allowed than at a workplace. How much more though, is a key question. One may ask who would be to judge such rules and how. I don’t yet have an answer to those questions, though perhaps it would be well-considered by a citizens jury to investigate such a question. Most people who are asking for more free speech on social media platforms these days in western societies would like to use it to defend their right to say hurtful things about groups of people. What if people decided to use free speech to try and say nice things about others? IT seems we are strong on righteous judgement, short on compassion for others.