The fatal freedom of speech fallacy
How we lost freedom of speech without realizing it
Freedom of speech is the paramount value of any society. It is like oxygen for an animal; you can argue that it isn’t so important, but without it you won’t be able to argue for long. You need the value of freedom of speech to even discuss the importance of other values.
John Stuart Mill—the philosopher that has advanced the concept of freedom of speech the most in recent times—argued that ideas must be debated for them to remain alive in a society. An idea that isn’t debated is dead.
Could it be that we have lost the most paramount value without realizing it? Could it be that freedom of speech is a zombie idea (an idea that we haven’t realized is dead yet)?
I contend we have lost it, but we haven’t realized it yet because this fact is shrouded in a fallacy.
The fallacy
Humans are particularly bad at logical reasoning; countless experiments (like the Wason selection task) show this is the case. Therefore, we need our errors in reasoning to be precisely identified, and explained to us if we have a hope of realizing we made an obvious mistake. Intelligent people—even philosophers (which are supposed to be experts in logic)—are not immune.
Sometimes fallacies are easy to identify. Some other times even profesional logicians have trouble putting a finger on the fallacy.
So the fact that few people (perhaps none) have seen the fallacy yet doesn’t mean it isn’t there. That would be in fact yet another error in reasoning.
The fallacy I’m talking about is one in which the meaning of the words is confused. Consider the interview Kriss Akabusi gave in 1991, where he was asked what did the gold medal meant to him as an “African-American”, to which he responded: “I’m not American, I’m British”. Most of us know what the interviewer meant; black.
All words have meaning, but some have multiple meanings. The word “theory” has one meaning for most people, but it has another meaning in science. In science the word “theory” means well-substantiated explanation, not untested hunch.
So it is completely possible for two people to be talking past each other, each one arguing with a person that doesn’t exist, because each one picked a different definition for the term they think are discussing.
This is called an equivocation fallacy.
“Only man[1] is rational. No woman is a man[2]. Therefore, no woman is rational.” This is a fallacy because two different definitions of “man” are used, so for all intents and purposes they are different terms, and must not be used interchangeably.
Could it be possible for a whole society to be debating itself using two different meanings for the same term?
The true meaning of freedom of speech
History gives us a clue. It was not until the advent of the printing press that the need to read certain books materialized. Books appeared explaining that the pernicious lies of other books needed to be censored. The idea of freedom of speech arose as a response to censorship.
Freedom of speech is an argument against censorship.
It would be impossible for me to somehow present all the literature around freedom of speech, however, I will try to simplify what in my opinion is the strongest argument; a modified version of the one presented by John Stuart Mill in his seminal work On Liberty.
The censored idea may be right
If a censored idea is right, it should be obvious how the act of censoring is to the detriment of society. Even if the idea is unpopular, it should be heard, because if it is right, society may benefit from that novel understanding.
The censored idea may not be completely wrong
Perhaps the censored idea is not completely right, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain some kernel of truth. The truth could actually be in the middle, between the established idea, and the censored idea. Even if not completely right, hearing about it may move society towards the right path.
If the censored idea is wrong, it strengthens the right idea
Just like the immune system, truth gains in strength the more it is attacked, and those attacks fail. It is in fact precisely because of those failed attacks that we should be confident in the truth, without them truth is like a sickly bubble boy; likely to crumble at the slightest challenge. In other words; truth is antifragile. Even if wrong, hearing about the censored idea would strengthen the right idea in the collective mind of the society.
These are arguments against censorship, however, notice how they don’t apply only to censorship. Say you have a brilliant idea in a drawer of your desk. It’s so brilliant that it only requires one page of explanation, but it has been sitting there for ten years. Society would benefit from hearing about it, it doesn’t matter if the idea is censored or not, the effect is the same; society is not experiencing its beneficial effects.
Freedom of speech is an argument in favor of exposure.
The other meaning of freedom of speech
In 2020 the concept of cancel culture is rampant. The common argument is that the right to freedom speech doesn’t imply that people must listen to you, or that you cannot get canceled, or that you should be free from the consequences of your speech.
This is correct.
But did you spot the fallacy? The right to freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom of speech argument. That is an equivocation fallacy.
A right is not some immutable object descended down from the heavens and granted by some gods. Rights are human constructs devised by humans, and granted from humans to other humans. Humans had to think about them first, then they had to argue why they would be beneficial, and necessary, and then they had to fight (usually) to demand them. Only after this can they be granted.
The specific rights regarding freedom of speech in specific countries came to be after the freedom of speech argument was debated in those specific countries.
And in any debate about rights a distinction has to be made between how things are (is), and how things should be (ought). So when freedom of speech rights were established, people had to argue that the status quo wasn’t desirable, and it ought to be something different. To argue that things necessarily are as they should be is called the naturalistic fallacy (deducing of an ought from an is) (not to be confused with the appeal to nature fallacy).
So when Google fired James Damore because of what he said in an internal memo, it is true that Google had the right (actually, even that is debatable), but that doesn’t mean it was moral, or desirable. Just because the laws permit it (is), doesn’t mean it’s OK (ought).
To determine if it’s desirable that companies fire employees because of what they say, we have to look at the freedom of speech argument, not the right.
To argue that it’s OK for an intellectual to be uninvited from an university talk because their freedom of speech right is not being violated is a double whopper of a fallacy: both a naturalistic fallacy and an equivocation fallacy.
The motte of freedom of speech
The most commonly stated freedom of speech right is the U.S. First Amendment. However, people conflate the First Amendment with freedom of speech; they are not the same thing.
Consider a law that requires people to wear pants while visiting the White House. Would it made sense for the same law to apply inside your home? No. Government should have limits. It should not dictate what people do in the privacy of their own homes. That doesn’t mean it’s OK for a guest to take his pants off at the dinner table, even if legal.
As obvious as the limits of the pants law are, so are the limits of the First Amendment laws. The freedom of speech argument applies at a dinner table; everyone at the table might benefit from hearing an unpopular idea. That doesn’t mean the government should enforce freedom of speech at a dinner table.
To understand how the limits of the First Amendment were chosen, it’s important to understand that the freedom of speech argument can apply at many levels. You can have freedom of speech at the level of a couple; if your partner doesn’t allow you to express certain ideas, that’s not conducive to a healthy relationship. You can have freedom of speech with a group of friends; a group where certain opinions are not allowed quickly becomes toxic. The same goes for company, a university, the whole mass media system, and even society.
But the government doesn’t concern itself with protecting freedom of speech at every level; there’s only one level it is concerned about; the government.
The First Amendment grants the citizens the ability to criticize the government without censorship. That’s it.
So, while freedom of speech is not generally protected inside a company, it is when that speech is political in nature (it pertains the government). The reasoning should be obvious; if an idea to improve the government is right, that idea should be heard by the population, therefore the government should not censor that idea, and it shouldn’t allow anyone to censor that idea.
The government uses the freedom of speech argument as a basis to protect ideas, but only when those ideas are about the government itself. This is of course not 100% correct, since many politicians and judges are humans after all, and they themselves might not understand the actual original intent of the laws.
Regardless of the current laws, the fact remains that government cannot protect freedom of speech at every level (nor should it); it constraints the protection to the realm of government. That means that just because certain kind of speech is not currently protected by law, that doesn’t mean it’s desirable to censor it.
The right to freedom of speech is the motte the government protects. Freedom of speech in general is the bailey that is society’s duty.
Resuscitating dogma
Just like an extended period of health makes us take health for granted, so does unchallenged ideas make them lax. As John Stuart Mill explained, an idea that is not being constantly challenged is a dead dogma:
However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.
Do you believe the Earth is round? If we know this to be the unequivocally case, does that mean we should censor flat-Earthers? The answer is “no”, according to Mill; there is something to be gained by allowing dissidents to present their case.
As astonishing as it may be to some people, flat-Earthers do have a point; we shouldn’t blindly trust authority. We shouldn’t just blindly trust NASA, nor our school textbooks, nor scientists, nor the vast majority of people. We should question everything, and look for the truth by ourselves.
If you do take this epistemological trip that flat-Earthers offer, you will come out still believing the Earth is round (hopefully), but you will do so with with a much better understanding. In fact, it’s only after you have taken such an endeavor that you can be rationally justified in believing so.
Take one concept flat-Earthers force us to reconsider; levelness. If you think you know what “level” means, try to explain it to a five years old. This concept is tightly related to the concept of “down”, but as Vsauce explained in its episode Which Way Is Down?; it’s not as straightforward as it initially appears. This trip quickly leads you to gravity, which isn’t actually a force as many people think, and it’s not constant. That leads you to Einstein’s general relativity.
If you take this trip, you understand not only that the Earth is round, but why. This cannot happen if you just take this fact as dogma.
You see, the interesting thing is not that flat-Earthers are wrong, but why. And the idea that the Earth is round should be defended by people that understand why, not merely repeating a dogma.
Flat-Earthers are like the dirt that keeps our immune system strong. Ideas should not be shielded from bad ideas; they must be exposed to them, otherwise they become inert, like zombies; undead dogma.
The parasitic twin
If healthy ideas need to be constantly challenged, the worst thing that can happen to the freedom of speech argument is that it stops being challenged, and unfortunately, that’s precisely what the right to freedom of speech has done.
Instead of arguing if Google ought to have fired James Damore for his speech, people argue that it is legal to do so.
This is killing the idea of freedom of speech because instead of discussing Mill’s arguments, people simply bring up the First Amendment. Instead of Bible-thumping, this is Constitution-thumping.
The right to freedom of speech is killing the idea of freedom of speech because society is neglecting their duty to defend this paramount value. Instead, they rely on the government to protect the right in its government motte. But the government protects the right, not the idea, and not particularly well.
Just like a parasitic twin absorbs part, or all, of its brother, so is the right to free speech slowing killing its brother; the freedom of speech idea.
The true consequence
The few people who end up engaging in the freedom of speech argument and yet somehow belittle it, usually state that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.
However, this often repeated mantra ignores the argument completely. The true victim of censorship is not the person being silenced; it is the society that is being deprived of an idea, even if that idea is wrong.
The method of deprivation doesn’t matter. Whether it’s censorship, cancellation, social opprobrium, or mere slightness; it’s still the society that suffers.
To claim that a person is not being censored; merely not being heard, is to miss the point entirely. It’s a distinction without a difference, like me saying I didn’t lie; I merely didn’t state the truth.
It doesn’t matter the method used to shun an idea; the victims are the people not hearing it.
The end
As history has shown time and time again, a society without freedom of speech doesn’t end in a good place. It doesn’t matter if it thinks it has freedom of speech, it doesn’t matter if it protects a parasitic bastardization of it; it still doesn’t have what freedom of speech offers.
Freedom of speech is the idea that protects all other ideas. It is the lifeblood that keeps all other ideas alive. It is the ship that allows conquistadors of truth to bring back their discoveries. It is the epistemological aid that highlights the demarcation between bullshit and truth in a swarm of ideas. It serves the function of synapses in our societal brain. Freedom of speech is the only way a society can speak about truth.
We dismiss it at our own peril.