Freedom is something that many search for and freedom of speech is a concept that has been continually driven as a value we must strive toward. It has become somewhat of a religion itself driven in large part by the media and social platforms and it is now commonplace for people to attack places they feel freedom of speech is restricted.
Steemit itself is a place that has attracted a large number of freedom of speech advocates due to the relative lack of censorship inherent in the current system. This means that people can freely post and comment about whatever they desire without the fear of having their content removed.
But, this does not protect them from the consequences of their words. The real free speech advocates are the ones who have likely done their research or thought about it enough to understand that being free to say whatever one wants does not mean that it comes protected from the reactions of others.
For example, people at Steemit are free to post what they like but other users are also free to comment harshly, criticise and flag the content if they so choose. This means that 'free' speech can come at a high cost as there is also freedom in reaction. Of course, those reactions themselves come with their own consequences.
There was the Charlie Hebdo case in Paris a few years ago where a magazine was making money from poking fun at people who are known to be unstable and retaliatory. Even though the magazine has the right to free speech, this does not protect them from the reactions of lunatics. Was the reaction of the murderers warranted? Of course not, but in their broken view of the world, it was to be expected sooner or later.
Should this stop people from speaking freely? In my opinion freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of speech also as words, for better or worse, create emotional reactions in others. Knowing this and inflaming means to take the responsibility to face that emotional response whether the reaction is rational or not. One can't have their cake and eat it too so to speak.
What I have come across lately is a diverse range of people who are more than willing to voice their opinions across various areas strongly yet, expect no opposition. When their views are opposed, they see this as an attack on their right to free speech. Criticism is not an attack on free speech, it is at the core of the concept, it is why it is so important to maintain free speech against governments and authority.
Many claiming to support their 'right' to free speech seem to not have the skin themselves when others exercise their own rights. It appears they want the option open to complain and attack others yet, they do not want the same rights for everyone. Apparently, they have misunderstood what free speech means as it is not only free for a section of a community, it is free for all. This means that they themselves may find themselves on the receiving end as others exercise their voices and displeasure.
The other thing that people seem to misinterpret is that free speech comes protected, that no matter what one says, their can be no reprisal of any kind. Like the case in Paris, this is not true. People will act according to their own value systems and emotional positions even when they contradict free speech itself. This is especially true when any form of criticism is met with an ad hominem argument, a personal attack on the character of the opposition.
Also, there is a large difference with the right to free speech at a governmental level and the rights to free speech in social environments. A social environment is a free market as no one forces people to be or stay acquainted. People are still free to speak but the consequence for the wrong words could be ostracization from the group.
This is a consequence of living in a world of social animals who tend to gather in groups with similar value systems. Speaking out against the group may be welcome in many regards but, there are also social lines that when crossed, carry costs. Membership of groups is not a guaranteed position ever and one must learn the social norms of any groups they choose to be part of or risk expulsion. Some groups are more and less stringent in these lines so understanding the group dynamic is vital.
Part of the problem these days comes when people have a poor understanding of what 'right to free speech' is and the burden of responsibility it comes packaged with. This is combined with socially disconnected people who are more intent on getting their words out while on their soap box than listening to the words of others. This often translates into friction and conflict and leads into poor discourse.
The reason is that because so few are willing to listen, learn and adapt yet expect to be heard, most spend a great deal of time talking past each other without any chance of understanding. This may be another social disease of the internet where people are so accustomed to speaking into the digital void, they have forgotten that a conversation means with someone, not at someone. And when there are more than one person discussing a topic, there are bound to various positions held, which means disagreement.
For many these days, they have grown in a world where people have compromised and agreed with them and most have not faced very strong resistance or been in situations that truly test the strength of their personal fibre. This means that finally when they do meet differing ideas and values, they act immaturely and will resort to verbal/physical attacks on their 'oppressors'. Yes, they feel victimized because someone doesn't agree with their stance on something.
The internet is of course a place full of diverse people and views and there are millions upon millions of groups and cliques where all types of people operate. The beauty of this means that there is always a group for everyone, no one need be left in the cold but, this doesn't mean that everyone is suitable for every group.
If one really does want to be part of a particular group than they must accept that they will have to somewhat conform to the standards of the group. If someone doesn't agree with the value system of the group, why would they want membership in the first place? If one enters the group and then decides they do not like the way it functions, it is generally not the mafia, and they are free to leave or try to change the dynamics. If they try to change, they must also expect resistance to change as people are emotional beings who tend to identify with their current position. This is all personal responsibility.
The responsibility of which groups one want to be a part of, what one is willing to speak out for or against and what price one is willing to pay for their stance is in the responsibility of the individual always. Even in the most restricted and censored places on earth, free speech still exists, the difference is that the cost of speaking is so high most will not speak up against it.
But, some do. They are the people that understand their right to speech and take the responsibility for their words and the consequences of action they inspire. In the real world, no matter what a law says, no matter what a culture has granted or taken away, ultimate responsibility lays with the individual and there is no protection, no security in nature, so carry enough curiosity to discover the risks and opportunities before speaking out and, always exercise caution.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
I agree
I agree entirely on the fact that freedom of speech cant be there if racism and other hurtful things can be said
It's cute how you wrote two comments just so you can upvote them both yourself.
... without upvoting the original post you agree with.
Freedom and responsibility are inseparable and it is amply evident in this culture that as freedoms disappear so do the people's sense of responsibility. During the first Great Depression, those impoverished tightened their belts, refused "charity" because they felt that it was demeaning of them and then proceeded to forge ahead and take care of themselves and their families as best they could until economic conditions allowed them to find jobs and income again.
The coming Great Depression is going to be much worse simply because most people have a huge sense of entitlement. They expect the government to take care of them and provide jobs and stimulate the economy, right on up the food chain to the very players who will crash the economy, lose money and demand the government compensate them for their greed and bad judgement.
I love being able to speak freely and gladly accept that not everyone will agree with me. I'm always open to discussion and when perhaps we reach an ideological stalemate, am happy to let that person believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't try to impinge on my beliefs.
People are social animals and being part of a club or affiliation or political party often shapes their beliefs. At that point they have stopped thinking for themselves and suffer the effects of "groupthink." This is a problem since mob mentality gives the false impression of righteousness. From the Salem witch trials to the McCarthy Commission, to the War on Terror, groupthink destroys personal responsibility and thus endangers freedom for the rest of us.
I'm a loner and not a joiner and so am quite the square peg in a world full of round holes. That's why I feel the responsibility to scream into the hurricane and hope that at least one person hears me. And if someone doesn't like what I'm screaming, at least they heard me.
Thanks for another great article. Resteemed and upvoted with my paltry 3 centavos worth.
¡The problem isn't that life isn't fair, it's that we believe it should be!
"An excerpt about Hermit Crabs"
Uhm.. ¡We gotta find one of those vacancy chains quick! or else, we'll need to convert us, join and embrace fully some kind of zen asceticism sooner than later.
Oh! And yeah! of course.. "Nothing worthy of a discussion fits on a bumper sticker" };)
What a great reply. It's a post unto itself.
We're taught to believe that life is fair, or should be. But of course, it's not. That's just reality.
Love the hermit crabs. Cooperative with a hint of competition. Not really hermits after all.
And the zombies really are out to get us.
Bienvenidos, Venezuela!
I feel you and I will not be able to add much to the comment. Thanks.
For me, I enjoy exploring all groups rather than avoiding all as it gives me insights into myself that I am unlikely to see without that mirror, or miss as I look elsewhere.
Indeed, group membership itself is quite a silly idea for anyone wanting individuality but I think that if the group is filled with truly individual thinkers and can be maintained on that uniqueness, it may be quite the reference group.
Personally though, I am tired of people pushing their agenda expecting no resistance to heavily flawed positions. It is like you say, part of their feelings of entitlement. When the next great war or depression comes, it is going to destroy many minds who grew up thinking they have already faced adversity.
All upvotes have value and are appreciated. :)
That is why I love posting on Steemit. We are all individuals. I've never seen any of you and probably never will, and yet we can network and find deep thinkers and uncover so much more useful information than solo research ever can, even with the data power of the Internet. I suppose we will in time affect each other's way of thinking and eventually form some sort of consensus, more or less, but the more thinkers arrive into our little universe, the more it and we will evolve. That's a wonderful thing!
Your reply is so excellent I'm disappointed my upvote is worthless!
Hang in there. It won't always be.
Excellent right up. Speaks directly to my world view. Handing over responsibility for security is something I'll never understand. Looking around the world, I find it amazing that Americans are so willing to give up the gift of freedom they received by being born on a certain plot of land.
Look at Catalonia and tell me living as a "subject" is worth the creature comforts used to placate you.
It is the oldest play, raise the fear, offer security. It rarely fails. It use to be stories to get the fear up, but these days it is becoming more and more violent in reality.
Stories don't work anymore. With video and the internet, the fear needs to be real.
A well-written examination of personal responsibility and the nature of freedom. One of my favorite essays is called "Freedom is a Two-edged Sword", expressing something of the dual nature of freedom that you described, encouraging the reader to bear its weight. Thank you for the reminder!
I am glad you stopped by and if I have a chance, I will check out the essay. I don't actually read so much but I guess I should sometimes get out of my bubble :)
So much to read, so little time!
Very well said! We are so quick to claim our rights and forget about the attendant responsibilities.
The right to be heard surely implies the responsibility to listen.
I fear too many people focus only on one side of the equation.
"Steemit itself is a place that has attracted a large number of freedom of speech advocates due to the relative lack of censorship inherent in the current system."
You know something? I am truly curious to find out what is the connection between freedom of speech and conspiracy theories.
Let's face it, when a network promotes freedom of speech, the conspiracy theories grow everywhere.
I bet there's a study to this.
Perhaps when people feel they do not need to 'hide' they are more willing to speak their mind. Perhaps it is like being drunk with a loss of social and personal inhibitions?
Yeah I guess, but there's definitely a ton of confirmation bias involved when learning of a conspiracy theory.
It's like, "I want this to be true because my life sucks today in society."
That's what I think.
Nicely written and I only can agree.
You are granted the right to say whatever you want but you do have to face the consequences. Me not agreeing with somebody doesn't mean his rights are stripped off. Even getting bashed or laughed at is something we need to take in account.
However, my home country Germany has some limits when talking about freedom of speech. Any glorification of the Dritte Reich or any denial of the holocaust will get you prosecuted.
What's your thought about that?
I think that good ideas should over power bad ideas. This doesn't mean that bad ideas should be censored. When it comes to things like racism (something I have and likely will continue to face) I prefer uncensored people as then I know where I stand. I can have had great discussions with people who have some very bad ideas and perhaps I have been able to make them reconsider. When they feel they must hide, we get the false sense that the bad idea doesn't exist.
Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, what ever it is, these people should be able to voice opinions too.
I think, if you get that freedom, there are still problems. If you do not have this freedom, there are still problems. We must be happy with what is now !
Problems and the way we solve them is what drives our evolution and personal growth. Happy in the now is accepting the role of continual problem solver.
It is a very interesting and actually also important article, because as you say there will always be a reaction to the statement that we are giving.
I remember that the debate of the freedom of speach was the center of the attention in Denmark when a newspaper decided to publish drawings of the islamic prophet as a terrorist. The story went viral, and the reactions went wild from the some parts of the muslim population and many threats were given to the newspaper while the drawer was living for several years under protection(I don't know if he still does.).
In my opinion the one who really understands the beauty of the freedom of speaks and wants to change things will not chose to attack the other person but instead initiate a dialogue where there isn't any fear of opening topics.
Of course this is the beautiful of freedom of speech some will simply not use it wisely, just like in economy where some people also will invest their money wrong.
I remember the case. Some people get angry if someone burns their country's flag but the same will purposely insult another culture's sacred something or other. The ideas and reactions are extreme and in my view childish but, pushing someone's buttons and then expecting them not to react is ignorant.
To any act there will always be a reaction, positive or negative. If one expresses a strong opinion then he should also be prepared for a strong answer.
I agree we should be prepared for a strong response. Personally I try to give a good response instead. Fighting fire with fire is likely to polarise the opponents and achieve very little. I fail often at this though :)
I love this. I love reading blogs that make you think a bit. Freedom of speech seems to be a hot topic these days. I'm still with the idea that we have the right to say whatever we want but we have to be ready for what comes after that. In the instance of racism, hate speech etc., people think it's just outright wrong. The thing is it's just about feelings. If someone is spouting something hateful we have the right to not let it affect us. The issue is when someone physically touches someone. In an exchange of free speech back and forth, it's just words, until someone actually physically impacts another. Not ok to physically harm someone or their property. Maybe that's just me...
Words are not violence. However, the listener these days often believes this not to be the case as they 'feel' hurt as they identify their physical person with their belief system. You can't hurt thoughts.
I agree. It a weird time we are in, i think. A seeming break down of a social structure that drives societies. Almost an abandon of logic in favor of feelings.
Great post!!
So. Practical question -- how do we proliferate the idea of 'freedom/responsibility of speech'.
Personally, I felt I learned about this idea doing my BA many years ago. At present, I'm finding people without a humanities education being critical of a humanities education, and then claiming their freedom of speech is taken away when they are being critiqued and challenged on it.
My argument is, if you truly understand the ideas you're dismissing, then you would have no problem in engaging in a critical debate on the issues, instead of claiming that your freedom is being challenged.
What do you think @tarazkp?
The current issue in places like US Universities is that the humanities department are the one's restricting the freedom of speech of anyone who disagrees with their limited views. In my opinion, if you actually believe what you believe, there is no argument in the world that can shake that belief except one that you can accept as a better position. This means that I can engage and listen to people I wholeheartedly disagree with and still have an amicable discussion.
I’m not in the US so I can’t comment on what’s happening, although I have read that.
I wonder though whether these departments are actually denying free speech, or are they putting forwards reasoned arguments of why (for example) it’s not OK to rape women, or why it’s not OK to harass people of different ethnic backgrounds, or to discriminate against people based on any reason.
Any time I’ve noticed that here (in Australia) it’s ususlly people who want to discriminate against others that are claiming that their freedom of speech is being denied, and so they begin to provide counter-arguments - which is great, because as you say, debate and dialectic is part of democracy.
Freedom of speech isn’t being denied if someone disagrees with you.
Freedom of speech isn’t being denied if a campus makes it not-OK to use hateful and discriminatory language against people whose voices have been denied for a long time.
As you said - and rightly so - you have to accept that if you’re going to make comments like ‘kill all blacks’ then there are going to be consequences.
I am not in the US either but have found a lot of material on people that are trying to improve situations being shouted down on campuses by various factions. There is no chance of talking about real issues if this is the process. The interesting thing is that the universities in the US generally hold the most privileged people on earth.
As said, responsibility of speech is of utmost importance but so is charity in the willingness to listen to someone attempt to state their position, however imperfect. We live in a global society where there are language and cultural difference in the way people approach discussion and this must also be considered by an audience.
My name was blacky for the first years of my school life. I grew up in a small town in South Australia. Some of those people that called me that are my friends today more than thirty years later, as once they started exploring other conversations and circumstances in life, they realised their argument was poor. We all must learn to listen to a range of perspectives even if we disagree. It may not change us but it gives us new space to think upon.
You're in Oz... Yay!
Agree completely. Loving reading your work ;-)
we are so lucky though nowadays, to be able to speak up without so many bad consequences in modern europe at least. exception always happen, but comparing to some centuries ago or even 50-60 years ago, i think we are on the right path towards more freedom of speech. aren't we?
I hope we are and at least I will continue to speak my mind when I think it matters. There are consequences to that though I know.
wow.. u write well :)
human born with their freedom, but when they'd growth there were more like "responsible choice" that becoming a former to human in adult time...
freedom is the highest good!
Anyone: Can you give me a one sentence definition of "Freedom"?