Is Freedom of Speech even Debatable

Why is it that we are so adept at proclaiming freedom-of-speech while, back at the ranch, running it down when that freedom asserts an ideal opposed to our own way of thinking? If reason be what makes us human, why the inconsistency? And maybe the fault is mine for “How ridiculous and what a stranger he is who is surprised at anything which happens in life.” – Marcus Aurelius

Democracy is about freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of actions; of course all tempered by liberal doses of moderation i.e. consideration for the wellbeing of others, consideration for the beliefs of others, consideration for the lives of others. As a matter of fact, consideration and moderation, besides the aforementioned freedoms, are the prime words by which democracy was devised (reminds me of the age old inconsistency: Look but don’t touch, Touch but don’t bite, Bite but don’t swallow…)

To the lob-sided equation, human-rights (human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing
factors, such as ethnicity and nationality,) was added as a condiment. These rights and freedoms likewise include the rights to due process, private ownership of property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. (In liberal democracies, such as that found in South Africa, these rights are generally constitutionally guaranteed.)

In contrast, Conflict, by characterization, refers to any quarrel between persons, regions, national districts or world powers. Conflict further refers to mental-states of unreasonableness, of stroppiness and of perverseness: arrogance, avarice, despotism, bigotry, absolutism. Qualities that not only subverts the human spirit but also relegates it to the annals of depravity - Ayn Rand in her gothic work entitled ‘Anthem’ expounded on what a world ruled by oppressive ideologies would be like: in one instance, she elucidates the arrogance of the ruling elite when it discards electricity in favour of candles for the concept was not developed by the masses for the good of the masses.

When Emmanuel Kant was asked to characterize Enlightenment (defined as the insistence on intellectual autonomy, a rejection of tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth, a loathing for bigotry and persecution, a commitment to free inquiry, a belief that knowledge is indeed power,) his vigour and clarity rose to the occasion: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.” Unlike his other long-winded works of philosophy, this was direct, to the point and sacrosanct.

In simple words, it is decisive forbearance towards all things that challenge and seemingly subvert ideals long held as truths, that determines enlightenment. Not an impossibility or a stretch of the imagination but a tortuous request nonetheless, for the general human propensity towards self-emulation will, if not checked, rise to the top: usually under the guises of nationalism, patriotism and eloquently-worded self-centred crowd-pleasing despotic monologues.

Therefore, as with enlightenment, freedom-of-speech, being a sub-set of enlightenment, must be conceived as an attitude in which the critique of what we are, be accepted as an historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us, and a testing with the prospect of going beyond them.

To all intents and purposes, there should be no debate pertaining to whether or not freedom-of-speech should ever be sacrificed, irrespective of circumstances i.e. noble intentions - history is full of noble intentions that did nothing but to propagate the will of those who proclaimed those very intentions.

Its for the above reasons that freedom-of-speech should be encouraged and cultivated at all levels of human interactions. It should never be allowed to wane or to be repressed irrespective of how much it condemns or criticises. It must be allowed to assert conjectures, contentions and what-ifs. It must be given free reign, for only then can life evolve beyond its self imposed immaturity - the world used to be considered flat. It was only by the covert persistence (an unfortunate system-induced malaise of the time) of a few heretics that the truth was eventually revealed.

Dare to speak. Dare to know!