The last Question of the Month in Philosophy Now was What are the Proper Limits of Free Speech? and answers were published in Issue 171, December 2025/January 2026. I submitted one, which wasn’t published. I don’t mind as they had excellent answers.
Limits on free speech is a contentious issue, because it axiomatically requires an arbitrator as well as criteria for arbitration, and, in many cases, it can have political ramifications. In my response, I argued that it is a consequence of our tribalism, which results in the subjectivity of perceived truth and the role of censorship (refer below).
Just on the subject of arbitration, I saw a recent documentary on our electoral system in Australia, and the head of our Electoral Commission, said there was no censorship of campaign advertising because they could not be seen as an arbiter of ‘truth’ without being accused of political bias (from whichever side). The only legal requirement is that the advertisement needs to be authorised by the political party that is being promoted. This doesn’t stop other organisations from putting in their 10c worth; but I’m talking about organisations whose views are well known, as are most media outlets, so it’s seen as political commentary rather than campaigning, though the distinction may be blurred.
Slightly off-track, but still relevant. Even more recently I watched a documentary on the history of Twitter, from its inception up until its sale to Elon Musk. They interviewed all-but-one of the cofounders, and my immediate impression was how naïve they were, when the ‘dark side’ of Twitter emerged, and how they failed to foresee it, let alone control it.
And this goes to the nub of the issue concerning the limits of free speech. In particular, how it was weaponised by organisations like ISIS, not to mention by Trump during his 2020 election campaign, when his hate speech was unfiltered. He was banned as a consequence, then allowed back on, in time to stoke the fires of the Jan 6 storming of the Capital, before being banned a second time, despite being POTUS. This didn’t stop some of his followers tweeting “Hang Pence”, among other inflammatory tweets. This confirms my own criterion for the ‘proper limits of free speech’, after I had written my analysis (see below).
I couldn’t help but compare Twitter with Wikipedia, especially since I watched a recent interview with its founder, Jimmy Wales. I know it’s a completely different platform, but Wikipedia could have easily created a warren of rabbit holes similar to YouTube and other social media outlets where the need to grow a consumer-base at all costs means that truth and accountability is jettisoned.
Wikipedia is a completely different model where the credibility of the ‘source’ is paramount. As someone who has prepared evidence for courts of law, I believe the same principles can apply in the court of public opinion, and I believe Wikipedia demonstrates this possibility. In a court of law or mediation process (I’ve been involved in both), the evidence and its credibility is the only criteria that matters. So when something is fact-checked and rejected, I don’t call that censorship – I call it being morally responsible.
I think one of the problems with my submission to Philosophy Now, was that 400 words is too limiting to discuss the nuances of attempting to deal with misinformation that can have life-or-death consequences, which includes current misinformation about vaccines. I think that both the far-right and far-left can be guilty of being anti-science and this has consequences for all of us. I think we need to acknowledge our dependency on people who have expertise that the rest of us don’t have, which was an everyday occurrence for me in my professional life in engineering. I have little patience for politicians who eschew scientific advice, no matter the field of inquiry.
Wikipedia, as revealed in the interview, is also accused of political bias, but I think that’s inevitable if you refuse to cater to conspiracy theories, which is something else I attempted to address in my original submission. At the end of the day, it comes down to trust, as Jimmy Wales keeps emphasising. People tend to trust their ‘tribe’, which is why, and how, social media has created echo-chambers fed by algorithms. And yes, I’m susceptible to that as well.
I’ve written previously on how one can find truth in a post-truth world, and I rely on the lessons I learned from preparing arguments in disputes. I found that if they are based on documented evidence that can’t be disputed, then you're in a good position. This is more difficult in the alternate universes created on the Internet, but sticking to the science is a good starting point. I tend to agree with Prof Brian Cox, that ignorance is the greatest danger facing humanity in the 21st Century. So ideas need to be contested, but I don’t think it helps to give conspiracy theories the same footing as evidence-based science.
This is my original 400 word submission to Philosophy Now.
This is a multi-faceted issue, so I’m going to start with context. We are a tribal species – one only has to look at other primates. And it’s an example of where a biological evolutionary trait has been amplified by cultural evolution, which in humans, has uniquely overtaken biological evolution. This is central to understanding how free speech has become problematic.
There is a relationship between free speech, perceived truth and censorship. I say, ‘perceived truth’, because it varies between standpoints, or tribes, and creates clashes in various forums from newsrooms to social media platforms to political outlets and even university campuses. Yet, arguably, it’s arguments over ‘truth’ that is the real problem when dealing with free speech, because one person’s education is another person’s propaganda. This has led to virtual alternative universes, which are not just different but opposites. Well known examples include climate change, where in one universe it’s a hoax or conspiracy, and in another universe it’s a scientific fact, and the not-so-recent COVID pandemic where, in one universe, vaccines saved lives and in an alternative universe, they were a ‘bio-weapon’. And of course, this extends into American politics, where in one universe, the candidate stole an election and in an alternative universe, the other candidate attempted to overthrow it.
Misinformation and disinformation are now rampant in the age of social media where regulations are not as stringent as they are in traditional media and the platforms are not legally responsible for what people post on them. Yet free speech, by its implicit intention, allows all views on a topic to have equal validity. This has led to arguments about ‘balance’ being imposed on public broadcasters by politicians and other parties, where scientific, evidence-based statements are expected to stand alongside conspiracy theories as if they have equal footing. It’s similar to arguments for ‘Intelligent Design’ to be taught alongside biological evolution.
To curtail these arguments brings the response of censorship. But there are some forms of censorship that virtually all tribes condone, which usually involves the protection of children. It’s only censorship of ‘free speech’ between groups or tribes that is contentious.
But the most pernicious aspect of tribalism arises from a tendency to form an ingroup-outgroup mindset, resulting in intransigence. And when the outgroup is demonised, the consequences can be dangerous, even fatal, and ‘free speech’ can be weaponised into ‘hate speech’. This delineates the ‘proper limit’.
No comments:
Post a Comment