π»πππππππ ππ£ππ π€π‘ππππ
π»πππππππ ππ£ππ π€π‘ππππ
A response to Elon Muskβs definition of the concept
A new step for freedom of speech
Following the recent acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, debates surrounding free speech, ranging from discussions over what it is, where it applies, and if it should or should not be limited, have started anew. However, the definitions used to characterize the concept are manifold, and some of them logically bring us towards drastically different conclusions. To fix this issue, we must aim to understand what free speech really is by analyzing where it currently applies, as well as how it should be understood in a more universal sense. For it is our belief that Muskβs buyout of Twitter is an important step towards a greater presence for freedom of speech on the internet, but that defined in the way that he has, Muskβs move to defend free speech from censorship could ultimately fall short considering the logical contradictions that his definition brings forth.
Free speech as a legal concept
First of all, we must understand that, as it stands now, free speech is primarily a legal concept. This means that, for oneβs ability to speak to be considered free, the institutions of force in place, i.e. the government, should not have the capacity to either restrict or coerce oral or written speech in any way, which is to say that the state cannot forcibly deny certain words, ideas or opinions from being stated, just as it cannot force any individual, group or corporation to say or do anything that they donβt want to. By that definition, most conservatives and other anti Big Tech advocates are dead wrong when it comes to the issue of free speech on platforms precisely like Twitter. For, when a company like Twitter chooses to restrict the speech of any and all individuals, they are indeed acting within their legal rights as no free speech, in a legal sense, is restricted, since expressing yourself on a platform like Twitter is a privilege which, if revoked by the owners or managers of such platform, implies in no way the use of force but merely the removal of said privilege. However, when conservatives in the United-States rally for regulations over Big Tech under the name of βfree speechβ, which would restrict in one way or another the ability for companies like Twitter to themselves restrict speech on their own platforms, they are contradictorily infringing the freedom speech of these companies, for such regulations would imply the use of coercion in order to forcibly make them unable to choose who and what can be said on their own turf, which would directly infringe upon their rights to freedom of association. Therefore, whereas the state is concerned, the limits of its ability to restrict speech should be clear : if what is stated does not result in direct physical harm, therefore moving the goalpost towards the domain of actions which is in no way absolutely free, such as the common example of shouting βfireβ in a public space which can bring direct harm to many people from the commotion it creates, the state cannot restrict that speech. Moreover, if an entity external to the government and its powers wishes to restrict speech in any way on their turf, the state cannot force them to do otherwise for such would itself imply an attack to their own freedoms of speech and association.
These limits are by all accounts necessary, for in a truly free society, individuals should be able to think what they want, say what they want, associate with whomever they want, and such however immoral it may be for them to do so. For when bad ideas are made illegal, the conversation around what makes these ideas immoral in the first place ceases to exist. But the ideas themselves donβt. They become insidious, festering in the hearts and minds of those who hold these ideas and who start to see themselves as victims. The censored people grow angry, the conversation being eclipsed from the public dialogue serving only to fuel that anger and their wrongful beliefs. Their ideas cease to be challenged ; the opposing and more than often right point of view ceases to be stated. Before long, their numbers multiply, their belief-system becoming more and more dogmatic, rendering reason less and less effective to face the wrath of their blind beliefs in these dangerous ideas. But such is not the case in a free society. With freedom of speech and association, we may engage in a discussion with these people, show them the errors of their ways. And if convincing them ends up being an impossible task to achieve, the option always remains to simply choose to ignore them, to choose not to associate with them, the counter-arguments and the ability for us to challenge their ideas remaining available to all of us at any time when necessary.
But what if youβre the one thatβs wrong ? While we know a lot about reality, not everything can be stated with perfect certainty, and especially so when it comes to issues of moral and political nature. Even though our goal here at The Whale is to form an objectively inferred moral system, which here means a moral system able to bring forth moral principles that we can hold to be good and positive for the flourishing of life with high certainty, errors may be still come to be made along the way, as absolute certainty is something that no single individual can ever reasonably affirm to possess when it comes to abstract concepts and issues such as those of morality usually end up being. It would be an error of the utmost severity for the state to choose to restrict an idea, only for that idea to ultimately end up being true, for us to find out that it accurately reflects reality and that it was all along the right idea. Years of progress would be lost to the use of force and plentiful suffering would occur, which has sadly much too often occurred during the course of history. Thus, both to ensure that bad ideas can be always be challenged, and that good ideas donβt end up being forbidden, lost and forgotten, freedom of speech as it applies to the legal system should always remain as close as possible to being absolute, or at least to be restricted only when directly bringing forth physical harm.
Free speech as a universal concept
And yet, there still remain two big problems with this definition of free speech. For one, there is a glaring contradiction when we assert that a company could restrict the speech of someone without infringing upon their freedom of speech. While force is not the tool used to do so, the freedom of speech of an individual is quite clearly limited when a company like Twitter expels them from their platforms, since forums like theirs are often the main way for individuals to express themselves to society at large in our current day and age. But also, defining free speech in a way that is intimately tied to the existence of the state is quite clearly inaccurate, for it would imply that freedom of speech did not and could not exist before the creation of the state. And yet, that is simply not the case, for in a state of nature you would still, by all accounts, hold the ability to express yourself freely. Of course, if you offend someone through your speech in such a state, no one would be there to protect you for the physical ramifications which may follow, which is one of the many reasons why living in a state of nature is not ideal to say the least. But you would still be free to say it, for no institution of force would exist to rob you of your ability to say such speech beforehand. Thus, defining freedom of speech as a purely legal concept is much too narrow. While it is true that, in order to preserve order and freedom in our societies, free speech defined in that sense must be the only way that the concept is understood and applied to the powers of the state, freedom of speech is a broader concept which can apply to all areas of life. For example, if in an university certain ideas and words are prohibited, whether it is through the rules of the university itself or through internal and oppressive pressure by the students or teachers, freedom of speech should in fact be considered to be limited, for the consequences of restricting speech in that context could end up being the very same, albeit to a smaller degree, as if it was the state itself doing it. The same logic applies to social media platforms. When Twitter establishes rules against the propagation of certain words or ideas, or even bans certain individuals from their platform for what they have said or their opinions, (so long of course as the reason is not actual harassment, which by all means has no place in any public forum), their are working against the universal principles of freedom of speech, and inevitable negative consequences of the same nature as when government restricts speech will ultimately follow.
But, as we have seen, the answer to such attacks upon free speech is not and cannot be government intervention, for such would itself imply infringing the freedom of speech of these platforms. The only good solution, which is albeit more complex and arduous, as good courses of action often are, is to change the minds of the many, to expose the danger and immorality of restricting speech in such a way in order to enact real change to the rules and policies of these platforms. Thankfully, with Elon Musk now coming into the picture by straight up buying the platform, such a hard and arduous task may reach its goal much sooner and in a more straightforward manner than expected.
Muskβs problematic definition
Elon Musk has publicly stated multiple times that his buyout of Twitter was made to change the rules and policies of the platform in order for them to respect more accurately the principles of free speech. This solution, Musk being one of the very few individuals actually living on this planet possessing the necessary capital to put it into action, may very well transform the platform into a public forum which holds a greater respect and adherence to free speech principles, and such without the help of any government intervention which would only serve to make the problem worse. This recent development is by all accounts very positive, for it is truly a properly moral path to fix this lingering issue. And for those who disagree, their freedom still allows them to simply leave the platform, and such out of their own proper will. However, a single problem still remains, which could serve to undermine Muskβs whole project if not swiftly fixed. This problem is the way in which Musk himself defines free speech :
For, if βfree speechβ simply refers to βthat which matches the lawβ, we are left with three big problems. The first one being that, once again, free speech returns to being a concept fundamentally linked to the existence of the state, which makes his whole crusade against censorship on Twitter illogical, for the platform has in no way broken any laws concerning free speech. But even worse is the relativity of such a definition. Since if it is the law which defines what is or isnβt free speech, then freedom of speech as a universal concept cannot ever hope to have its existence acknowledged, and new laws restricting speech could come to be created without them βtrulyβ restricting free speech defined in that way, since the state itself would come to be the arbiter of what is or isnβt free speech, and not reality itself. Moreover, βthe lawβ is itself much too vague of a term. For instance, we could simply ask ourselves the question βwhich law ?β Since Twitter is a platform available all around the world, and that every country has its own sets of laws regarding free speech, some of them even allowing no freedom of speech at all, how do we determine which laws the term βthe lawβ apply to ? Is βthe lawβ that of the particular country from which Twitter operates ? It may be so, but in the absence of further clarifications, and considering the other conceptual issues which this definition of free speech brings forth, it would be best for Musk to correct his definition of the concept.
Musk's buyout of Twitter is an amazing opportunity for free speech to be restored on Twitter, for the platform to become a safe haven for free intellectual discussions, and for it to be rebuilt as a moral model for other companies to follow. However, with free speech defined in such a way, Musk is fighting an uphill battle. Logical contradictions have already been exposed, and more will follow, which can only serve to hinder his fight against censorship and towards a greater presence for freedom of speech on the internet.
With cautious enthusiasm, πππ πππππ