The Case for Free Speech

The kangaroo fight

Disputes in the animal kingdom are, ultimately, settled through fights - physical violence. This can be individual on individual or tribe on tribe.

Why is this? Any animal which is unwilling to use force under any circumstances will go extinct: it will simply be bashed off all eating and reproductive opportunities by another animal that is a bit less gun-shy. Just as in the kangaroo fight "anything goes", there can never be any unbreakable rules of engagement. If a rogue is able to simultaneously defeat all the rule-abiders using his outlawed methods, there won't be anyone around afterwards to punish him.

What's the problem with this resolution method? Obviously, it's that fights are costly. For kangaroos it's 'broken bones and internal injuries', blindness and hence ultimately death.

What can be done about this? What if there were a reliable way of determining the likely outcome of a physical fight before it happens? That way matches with an overwhelming favourite can be avoided before they happen - to the benefit of both parties. Obviously there are such mechanisms and they are unsurprisingly near-universal in the animal kingdom. The most primal fortune-telling mechanism is size. Bigger = more likely to win. Much bigger = much more likely to win and not worth challenging.

Then you have additional strength displays such as exaggerating physical features, teeth baring, growling, stomping etc. These signals all evolved to allow the avoidance of unnecessary combat; ensuring only the most closely matched competitors ever fully engage.

What's this got to do with free speech?

As humans we can sometimes fool ourselves into thinking that we above all these barbaric animal phenomena. A moment's examination, however, will tell you that this is clearly not the case. We are at every moment locked in the most complex web of animal hierarchies the planet has ever seen, from primal tribe structures to the international power struggles of massive nation states. Underpinning all these hierarchies are implicit and explicit threats of physical violence. As evidenced by the past century, disputes of any magnitude rarely stay one-on-one for long. To top things off there is now enough destructive power to destroy life on earth as we know it.

It still matters

Appropriately, and thankfully, we do have more nuanced mechanisms capable of mediating all this firepower. While most animals have only rudimentary outcome prediction techniques in the form of size comparison or strength displays, we have the ability to use our hyper-developed cognitive functions to forecast the outcomes of potential fights. Not only this but we also have communication tools advanced enough to let others be party to our predictions. This is a complicated way of saying that can think critically and talk to each other. We work through various hypothetical scenarios together and so collaborate to find the best solution. Only if no mutually acceptable solution can be found does physical violence erupt.

Hence, amongst other things, speech and reason are advanced conflict avoidance mechanisms. Let's look at some examples:

1. Dr Evil

Dr Evil has managed to plant hidden nuclear devices in range of every major city in the developed world. He is sitting in his base with his finger on the detonate button. What does he do? Does he press it right away? No, he phones up the united nations and explains the situation to them. Thus he signals that there is an outcome that is more preferable to him than actually pressing the button (of course, he would much prefer one milllionn dollars muhaha...). The world leaders listen to what he has to say and, if they believe him, fulfil his ransom demands.

2. The Camel Riders

A troupe of camel riders is trekking through the desert. Their newly elected leader, Mustafa, has recently made a rule that saying anything that is deemed 'negative to morale' is now illegal. Anyone committing this crime of naysayery will immediately be put to death by means of poison arrows. The troupe are very happy with this new rule because their previous leader was a real eyeore.

One day Mustafa says, "I think we should visit the town of TikTak later today". Upon hearing this news, Ali, a lowly member of the tribe, is alarmed. He had recently heard that TikTak had been taken over by cannibals. He had heard of a case where visitors to the town, initially welcomed in, had been captured, killed and served up for the king's dinner. He hadn't told anyone because he worried tales of cannibalism weren't very cheerful and could be classed as naysayery. He was just sort of hoping that the troupe would never end up going there. However now he has no choice.

Ali tries suggesting an alternative, being as enthusiastic as possible: 'Great idea, oh wise Mustafa, TikTak is wonderful I have heard! However, what is even more wonderful, is the town of Shan - simply beautiful. How about we consider that too?' Mustafa glowers back. 'However?', he says, disapprovingly, 'that is a negative word. Scribe! Add it to the ban list! We simply cannot have this negativity in a civilised tribe Ali - you must be quiet now.' The rest of the tribesmen look down nervously.

Ali is now in a real conundrum. To make things worse, his daughter, whom he adores more than anything else and would gladly give his life for, is currently under 'special protection'. This means her camel rides tethered to Mustafa's, supposedly so as to gain from his wisdom by proximity. To question this, to request the release of his daughter, would mean sure death.

The conclusion?

Example 1 simply shows that there are scenarios where you need to let the bad guy speak freely. It’s in everyone’s interest, including his, that he is able to communicate his intentions.

Example 2 is perhaps more instructive. It shows that, where speech regarding the future of a civilisation is concerned, censorship should be done with extreme caution. No one has a monopoly on truth. If a person, or a group of people, believes the direction of a civilisation is misguided, they must be allowed to freely speak their mind and make their case. From there the whole group can use the advanced cognitive abilities mentioned earlier to try and work out who is right and who is wrong. If the dissenting group is not allowed to speak, however, then in their minds, and so ultimately manifested in reality, the only option is violence. This corresponds to Ali perceiving his only option being to use whatever means necessary to free his daughter and prevent her from being boiled alive.

Final words

The parallels with European democracies today are, I hope, clear. Hate speech laws and other such legislation are meaning that a growing body of people, upset at what they see as the prospect of forced mass migration, Islamisation and demographic replacement, are unable to speak their minds. Political correctness culture further soft-polices what people feel they can and can’t say. (See Swedish grandmother and Morissey examples in notes). Now, even if they are wrong (just as Ali may have had his facts about TikTak completely off), you need to let them speak or you will get violence. Once enough people, not given the option to speak, feel strongly enough, they will resort to any means necessary. I can’t see how that is preferable for anyone. If we fail to realise this we are better than the bloody kangaroos. Repeal the laws, quit the hysteria, and let's have an adult debate where nothing is off the table.

If not, get training.