What are the outer bounds of freedom of speech? Should there be freedom from the consequences of speech? Should some speech be suppressed? Should there be consequences for suppression of speech?
I’ll start with US federal law regarding speech. “Speech” is not just classified as what you say or write. It also encompasses art and journalism. For instance, the government cannot ban depictions of nudity such as a Greek statue or pornography because it is classified as art and therefore falls under freedom of speech. Most public government buildings such as post offices and city halls prohibit the use of cameras or recording devices, but if an individual is recording information with a camera or sound recorder while in a publicly accessible area of a government office specifically with journalistic intent the US Federal Constitution’s first amendment supersedes rules that bar recording. The Federal Supreme Court has ordained that journalism is protected as speech. If an individual was only taking pictures for personal use that would not be considered speech, and thus could be barred from taking photos.
What about in situations where a private entity is regulating speech instead of the government? If I walked into your house and said something vulgar you could remove me from your property under threat of trespass and police intervention. There would be no opportunity for me to sue for a constitutional violation because I was on your private property.
Public Venues and Private Platforms
Consider these scenarios and decide for yourself which of these are appropriate and which are immoral suppression of speech:
- You invite Bob to a private dinner party at your home. Bob says that the state of Israel is illegitimate. You tell Bob to go home.
- You host a private speaking event in your home. Bob is invited as a speaker. Bob says that the state of Israel is illegitimate. You end Bob’s speech right then and silence him.
- You host a event where Bob is invited as a speaker. Bob says that the state of Israel is illegitimate. You end Bob’s speech right then and silence him.
- You host a podcast that is publicly livestreamed to millions of people. Bob is invited as a speaker. Bob says that the state of Israel is illegitimate. You end Bob’s speech right then and silence him.
- You host a public Bible study in a public location. You are giving a sermon and are the only speaker but others may ask questions to clarify your statements. Bob arrives as a guest and says that Jesus is not the Son of God. You tell Bob that this is not the right time or place for a religious debate and to be silent.
- You host a public debate forum centered on communism versus capitalism. Everyone is invited to speak. Bob arrives and wants to debate atheism versus theism. You tell Bob to stay on topic, be silent, or leave.
- You host a public debate forum centered on communism versus capitalism. Everyone is invited to speak. Bob arrives and argues that capitalism is bad. You tell Bob to be silent or leave.
- A man stands on a side walk loudly preaching fire and brimstone. You tell him to be silent. He ignores you. You call the police and he is arrested for creating a public disturbance.
- A man stands on a side walk shouting racist slurs. You tell him to be silent. He ignores you. You use violence to silence him.
- A man holds a gun to your head and tells you that he will shoot you unless you sign a document claiming your support for a specific presidential candidate.
I believe that the first six scenarios are morally sound.
In the case of the first two, you are in your own home. You are not in any way obliged to hear things that disgust you. In the case of scenarios 2-4 you have invited Bob to speak. Other people will believe that you must agree with Bob if you have invited him to say obscene things. If you were obliged to allow him to keep speaking that would be classified as “compelled speech” wherein you are forced to say something that you might not believe. Scenario ten is a radical example of compelled speech. Scenarios five and six are harder to argue for their morality. In scenario five Bob is allowed to ask on topic questions, but is not permitted debate. A hard fence has been set on what discussion would take place. It would be equally unpermitted to talk about what everyone had for lunch that day. In scenario six the forum is public. You didn’t invite Bob to speak, so people cannot argue that you support Bob’s words. This should be a place where Bob can speak freely and his words are only his opinions and not yours or anyone else’s. The issue here is that the forum was built for a specific purpose. A fence was placed around the topic to only include discussion about communism and capitalism, but Bob wants to discuss something entirely unrelated. If Bob wanted to debate for another system of government such as monarchy you might be obliged to expand the bounds of the conversation to include him because his speech might be relevant to the topic.
In scenario seven Bob has arrived and is allowed to speak on the topic of communism versus capitalism. He stays on topic but is silenced regardless. If only the pro-communist people are allowed to speak then there is no debate which is the entire point of the forum to begin with. This silencing is immoral. In scenario eight the preacher is in a public place. Sidewalks have been enshrined by the Federal Supreme Court as a “public forum” where anyone can speak on any topic. The only boundary on this speech is speech intended to cause panic such as claiming a false alarm that there is some imminent harm. For example, that there is a nonexistent man on a gun rampage around the corner. Were a police officer arrest a man solely for preaching the preacher could sue the city that employs the officer, the police force, and the officer himself. The officer would not receive qualified immunity because of his actions because he engaged in “prior restraint” which is when a government official tells an individual that they cannot engage in specific speech. Scenario nine and ten should be obvious in it’s immorality. You cannot bring violence to a person for words alone. You cannot compel someone to say something through violence or threat of violence.
What about large private platforms like social media?
Twitter has been called a “digital town square”. It is not like any of the scenarios listed above. You are not bound to only certain topics. You are not invited to speak. If Bob makes a twitter account and says that the state of Israel is illegitimate his words have no bearing on the beliefs of Twitter or it’s owners. He was not invited to join. He did not stray outside of the bounds of discussion topics. It would be immoral to silence him no matter how obscene his words are. Others should be allowed the opportunity to debate against his position. They are not obliged to hear him and can block him.
What about users posting spam?
Twitter makes the majority of its revenue from on platform advertising. They want every advertisement to originate from money paid to them. This is a boundary on speech that is acceptable. You can talk about how great essential oils are but direct messaging 400 different people with a link to your store whether they want to see that or not falls outside the one boundary on speech.
What about small groups?
If you make a Discord instance about drinking and enjoying tea and Bob comes in saying “tea sucks! tea is lame! I hate tea” he clearly does not belong in your community and can be removed. the bounds of discussion are enjoying tea, not hating it. Discord allows for multiple different channels for different topics within a single Discord instance. There is an oft repeated meme about Discord culture: “Please do not post memes in #general. Please keep your memes in the #memes channel.” or “Please only post politics in the #politics channel.” This is a clear example of fencing discussion topics within certain channels. You can talk about whatever you want in #general, but if you start posting a dozen memes per hour you are going to clutter the discussion to the point that it would be hindered. To avoid that there is a separate space for posting memes. There is no moral issue with this.
Okay, but how do you manage a community while maintaining this moral framework?
I personally run two Telegram chats that I would classify as medium sized. There are a few specific rules that culminate into two intentions; no porn and no derision. The actual rules are as follows:
- no porn
- no derision
- if you demand someone post hand/physique/fit/1rm you MUST post yours first.
- you can ban evade by posting capybaras
Rule one is obvious. Rule two means that you should debate in good faith. You can attack someone’s argument with ad homonym (“that’s retarded”) but you cannot attack the other person with ad homonym (“you’re retarded”). You can get as heated or as passionate as you want but you should respect the person you are talking to. Rule three is more specific but follows the same spirit of rule two. Demanding someone post a photo of their hand is a demand for someone to prove their ethnicity. “Fit” challenges someone to show how presentable their appearance is. “Physique” and “1RM” challenges another person’s strength. The challenger cannot get away with using another person’s appearance in an argument. He must put his own cards on the table as well, so to speak. Rule four exists to create an opportunity for penance and indicate one’s interest in remaining in the group despite having broken a rule in the heat of the moment. Rather than just saying “I’m sorry” and possibly not meaning it, they have to go the very small extra step of searching Google images for a picture of a capybara and posting it as a sign of sincerity.
The chats are both Christian centric. If someone does not believe in Christ that doesn’t bar them from being a member. They can argue against God (in good faith) and I will often respond. They can ignore the issue and focus on other topics. Outright derision without an interest in debate means that the user does not belong in this discussion and should probably find a home elsewhere.