While I’ve been pretty busy this summer, I find that I still have the time to go on social media and see what people are up to and talking about. With the current political state of the world, a lot of it is pretty hateful. This got me thinking, at what line is the censorship of free speech justified, especially in the digital age? When researching this topic, I stumbled across John Stuart Mill, philosopher, economist, and lover of utilitarianism. He had developed this concept called the Harm Principle. The principle’s core concept is that speech, under almost all circumstances, shall not be censored unless it causes direct harm to someone else. For example, it is within a person’s rights to point out the corruption of politicians, however if they were to tell someone with a sniper pointed at the head of that politician to shoot them for their corruption, their speech shouldn’t be protected. Mill’s core argument is that unless the speech is causing direct harm to someone else it should not be censored by anyone, especially not the government. However, is it really possible to decide what is harmful speech, and what isn’t? Can we objectively scale the level of destruction words can cause without applying our own biases? The difference in how people interpret and intake opinions varies from person to person and with unlimited access to those opinions with the internet, it is hard to have a clear line of state censorship. Although John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle is ideal, it doesn’t apply to the subjectiveness of how one perceives things, and the intent of discussion, trying to constantly prove someone wrong instead of engaging in constructive debate.
When writing a paper in school, I learned of the ancient Greek Sophist, Protagoras. He states that: “Man is the measure of all things. Of the things that are, that they are, of things that are not, that they are not.” Everything we perceive is subjective. Man is different in personality, morals, what is thought to be good, bad, ugly, and beautiful. Nothing can be understood without taking what’s listed above into account, therefore there is no definitive line on what we should and shouldn’t censor when it comes to freedom of speech. In a world full of opinions, bias, and prejudice, it is devoid of the objectivity that should have come along with it. The world is a sea of different voices and perspectives so it is imperative we know how to wade through and listen to all in a constructive and open minded way: To be able to critically evaluate what we read on the internet, the intent behind it, and how to respond, whether it be through continuing on or engaging in discussion. This is what we would call media literacy, and it is something assumed in Mill’s framework, but never addressed.
Mill’s framework assumes constructive debate, which the internet has made extremely rare through the echo chambers it’s so keen on creating. The indirect harm free speech can cause is much more dangerous and apparent now than it was in the past. Understand, this is not an argument for censorship, simply that the principle doesn’t account for the digital age we all live in. In fact it can flip Mill’s Harm Principle on its head. Mill’s optimism for free speech relied on the assumption that truth would rise above the sea of constantly flowing ideas and debate. However what he didn’t account for was the echo chambers that algorithms suck users into, creating groups of people who only agree with each other; they themselves are not criticizing their own way of thinking. Essentially trapping themselves in their own rubber box, bouncing the same ideas and opinions off the walls of the room too small for a conflicting thought. Typically, a debate, (and a constructive use of free speech) occurs when you have two positions in an argument, a thesis and an antithesis. What we aimed for through free speech and debate to find the synthesis. However throughout history, people have always been attracted to their own ideas, but now through these digital echo chambers algorithms, it’s easy to get trapped receiving thoughts that feed into your own opinions without scrutiny, effectively tearing us apart instead of coming together.
The best one can hope for is the push for polite discussion rather than the silencing of voices. While we hold the freedom of speech of utmost importance, we have to be ready to deal with the consequences it brings. However, that doesn’t mean we should completely disregard guidelines set in place for speech. The unfortunate reality of these guidelines however, is the people putting them in place, those supposed to be free from bias, are incapable of objectivity. People in these powerful positions of monitoring human interaction are almost never operating without a certain agenda. For example, those simply calling for the freedom of an oppressed minority group, might be censored for their “slander” of the oppressive majority. Which would then lead one to think the best course of action would be to have zero censorship of ideas online. However, that would enable those with harmful intent behind their own words to directly harm others.
Something I’ve learned in my 18 years is that we’re all human, and for better or worse, share differing opinions on almost everything. But without the constant scrutiny of our beliefs and the freedom of speech, our species would not have come as far as we have today. It is important to take into account the modern era and the access to information and the opinions of others we have at our fingertips. It’s so easy to fall into echo chambers (something I’ve been a victim of) that effectively harm our own critical thinking. This is not about what the government can and cannot censor, but about if we are equipped with the knowledge to handle freedom of speech in a world trying to pull us apart rather than join us together.
