ARTICLE - Where Free Speech Is Useless

There have been times in my life where I have mistakenly thought myself a good listener. I've struck up a friendship with someone, who I later realised used their time with me to perform this weeks emotion dump. Having found someone willing to listen and not contradict them, they go straight for what makes them most pissed off and angry. Over time you realise its the same issue every time you meet them that they have a beef about - how wrong and pig headed other people are - being the favoured one. Once this dawns on you, you have then to consider, do I say anything about this, because you don't really want to become the object of this pissed off friend,  do you? 

So you gently venture into the outer border territory, just to see how they might react, but leave yourself enough room to back off quickly if it starts to look too tricky. Being extra cautious because this person has been known to punch out, when crossed. Experiments completed, you come to the conclusion that this friend of yours is not actually interested in your opinion, and if they heard the full truth of what you had to say, there would be some sort of violent response. If you're lucky, only verbal. 

You might say, well tell them regardless, its not much of a friendship anyway. Yeah, I've tried the nuclear option, and the one person I did that too no longer utters a word to me, nor even acknowledges me in the street. I did hurt them, because I got under their armour and prodded purposefully about. But it had no effect whatsoever on changing their behaviour, which had been my naive aim. People have to want to change themselves, frank interventions really only work when the object of them is almost at the point of realising the same thing for themselves. 

What I could chose to do in such circumstances, would be gradually increase the time between meeting up, until at some point perhaps these meetings might cease altogether. Because another thing about this type of friendship is that its you who has had to do the running all along in arranging to meet up regularly. Though you've had precious little airtime or personal reciprocal benefit from it. Now you might say, what has this little personal homily got to do with free speech? Well.......

Ideally, in a democracy, free speech functions as a way to express opinions, grievances and ideas, to put them in the public arena. There is always a consequence to speaking out, in that what you have said is open to challenge, exploration, condemnation or refinement in the process of public dialogue. Free Speech is an informal right, not an absolute one. I'm always a bit worried when governments want to legislate to support free speech, it gives off entirely the wrong vibes. Opinions which are slanderous, untrue, incite violence, libel to cause an affray, or are designed to undermine democracy itself, often have some form of legal redress or limit put upon them.  Free Speech is useful when used in this manner, its fundamental to a fully functioning democracy. Its not perfect and often its a difficult call when two conflicting groups fail to discover a way forward with an issue.

However, I have been noticing the concept of what free speech is has been adjusted online, one that is in danger of neutering its democratic purpose altogether. People are free to say whatever they like online, but can seem entirely unwilling to be subsequently challenged or enter into dialogue. In fact, any challenge, exploration, condemnation or refinement is often being portrayed as an infringement of their free speech, that they are being cancelled by the request to be accountable. Its no coincidence that this is the favoured cry of the far right, who might be wearing an acceptable democratic 'beard', but are no friends to democracy ideologically. This form of consequence free Free Speech is utterly useless, and is simply just venting and dumping onto the capacious clouds of the internet, poisoning the discourse.

There is much talk about free speech being in danger from left wing 'wokery' but stunned silence when it comes to the right wing travesty of Free Speech now taking hold in the US as we speak. Closing down accountability, banning journalists, removing minority rights etc. But to be honest the left is just as bad closing down discussions on contentious subjects, resorting to simple name calling, using offence as a reason to curtail an open conversation, insisting on particular language being used. There are difficulties society has around many subjects, trans rights is one. The right wing want to ban gender theory and its consequences, the left want to ban anyone who doesn't agree with gender theory. Thus any discussion or exploration of the issue by society at large is completely stymied, because the engine of free speech to explore what the issues are, is being encumbered by coercive controls.  

But in truth, a lot of what is making people unwilling to enter into dialogue, particularly online, is the level of violence and threat that you can suddenly find yourself in receipt of. One of the shared characteristics that my two examples of difficult friendships had, was they were both to a degree lonely and isolated people, both with bad quick tempers. And one suspects a lot of online trolling is by people who don't get out enough, have few real friends they can interact with, and have a lot of suppressed anger issues. Interacting with people online can be fraught with real difficulty, because of the semi-alienated nature of it. Without the body language and a lived sense of their mood and way of being. What you feel able to say online is very different to what you would say to them in person. There appears to be little room for nuance. No waiting for the right most opportune time to say something, its the 'nuclear' option straight away.

Recently there was an ARC conference. The Association for Responsible Citizenship is a broadly right wing, Christian Nationalist organisation. I glimpsed the beginning of one young chaps talk where he began by saying he felt free for the first time to fully express himself. The subtext was he was now in a context where he wouldn't be challenged or shut down, he was safe within the supportive bubble of that conference. What he went on to say was that all the moral ills of modern society could be laid at the door of homosexuality and gay marriage being liberalised. So you could instantly see why his experience would be that he was rarely heard out. I have little sympathy for his viewpoint, obviously being its target. But it also felt desperately sad that he felt unable to get all his shit off his chest elsewhere. Go to the gym man.

Some how we need to get Free Speech back into the real world, of real people, hammering out the issues in real time and real space, And, just as a polite addendum, don't forget that we all have freedom of choice. No one has to sit and listen to anyone off loading their half baked ideas, if they don't want to. We can make the choice to walk away. They don't dish out medals for endurance. Remember, no one will be willing to change their mind, if they don't first respect you or your opinions. Nor if you shout loudly at them does your rectitude appear more convincing. People are innately resistant to change their views, however wrong headed, until you put a lot of time and effort into winning their hearts first.