Elon Musk declared he was a "free speech absolutist," and despite his failure to act in accordance with this declaration, his critics had an absolute meltdown over the idea. Let me be clear: I am an absolutist on the subject of free speech and freedom of the press. The only justifiable curtailment is that defined by property rights. I do not have the right to shout through a bullhorn in your bedroom at 2 AM, but that is because of trespass, not free speech restriction. I have no dispute with the Wikipedia description as a negative right:
This means that the government is legally obliged to take no action against the speaker based on the speaker's views, but that no one is obliged to help any speakers publish their views, and no one is required to listen to, agree with, or acknowledge the speaker or the speaker's views.
Here in the USA there is a long tradition of support for freedom of speech, the press, religion, and assembly as enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the united States and equivalent passages in state constitutions. However, this tradition also has a long history of authoritarians discovering "exceptions," and conflict over freedom of expression seems to be escalating at an exponential rate nowadays.
These conflicts first emerged way back in 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Acts which allowed prosecution of those who criticized the Adams administration. Writers and printers were imprisoned and fined for engaging in the very kinds of free expression the First Amendment was intended to protect. Madison and Jefferson opposed such overreach, but the injustice was done at least for a time in spite of the limitations those men sought to impose on political ambition.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln oversaw restrictions on freedom of the press, and used the war powers act to imprison his critics and shut down their papers. You will still find people today saying this was justified due to the extraordinary circumstances. I ask you, if rights are contingent upon a political authority deciding circumstances justify infringement, are they really protected?
During World War I, the "clear and present danger" test was made up out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States along with the abysmally flawed analogy of "shouting fire in a crowded theater." Then even that test was cast aside to prosecute Eugene Debbs. In Frohwerk v. United States, opposition to the war was declared "willful obstruction" of recruitment efforts, and thus not protected speech during wartime. World War II and the subsequent Cold War included more restrictions on speech and press, but these early precedents were the foundation on which those were built. If dissent is not protected in times of crisis when dissent matters most, what good is it to pretend dissent is protected?
In addition to the political dimension, there has also been a softer censorship ebb-and-flow based on cultural norms and what is deemed "acceptable" in "polite society." Here, I shift from what I learned in history to what I saw and heard in my own living memory. I remember the aftershocks of the Satanic Panic, the rise of parental advisory labels on music, the arguments over political correctness, and rising tensions surrounding the "Global War on Terror."
I remember when the internet was a place where people could freely discuss, debate, bicker, troll, and insult over disagreements. Then content moderation crept in, and along with a lot of filth getting swept aside, various dissenting opinions began disappearing as well. "But Facebook/Twitter/etc. is a private company," people said in response to criticism. Yes, in the US, those amendments and Constitutional provisions only apply to governmental action, but first, that does not mean private censorship is above criticism, and second, these corporations have been shown to be deeply intertwined with government, making them less market institutions and more political. COVID brought this to light for all but the most willfully ignorant.
Here on HIVE, we have some immunity to these pressures, and we must remain ever vigilant against censorship. Whenever people say cryptocurrency, blockchain technology, and internet opinion need to be regulated, know that you are in the crosshairs.
Outside the internet, the old political correctness arguments have exploded into more open conflict. From the modern left, cancel culture has labeled almost all dissent as hate. Roald Dahl's books are being expurgated, several Dr. Seuss books have been pulled from publication, and J.K. Rowling is condemned as a TERF. From the right, anything that can even be imagined as slightly LGBTQ is denounced as obscene, pornographic, and grooming children for pedophiles or a secret transgender agenda.
As a librarian, I see both sides using irrationality and exaggeration to attack the very things they both claim to defend: personal freedom and individual liberty. In the face of all these threats, political and social, I am an extremist. I am a free speech absolutist. As Karl Hess wrote in Barry Goldwater's speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination,
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Be extreme and absolute in matters of principle. We need free expression, open discourse, unrestricted inquiry, and protection from authoritarians of all stripes for personal and societal progress alike. Beware seizing power to silence others lest it be used against you, and with your own actions as the precedent.
