Freedom of Speech is a big thing these days. Mostly because of the internet and the introduction of it in a mainstream kind of way.
But it’s not just the internet in general.
It was social media. That’s where the freedom of speech rhetoric started to gain more traction as a talking point, a problem, a bigger conversation, and a discussion leading into 2022 and beyond.
But what is freedom of speech?
In simple terms, I have my opinion and you have yours. We’re both allowed to express it and have the freedom to do that.
That is what freedom of speech is and how it ultimately works. But that’s also why it can be hypocritical and contradictory depending on who is exercising it or shouting about it.
Let’s talk about it in depth.
Why freedom of speech can be hypocritical but still necessary:
1. Creative expression
Where would the world be without creative expression?
Entertainment is the #1 industry in the world, or at least the top 5 as far as what’s most important to people and what people consume.
This comes down to creative expression. In fact, it’s built off the back of creative expression. Creativity = creating and inventing things from ideas, thoughts, concepts, your environment and so on.
This is how we have:
- TV shows.
- Video Games.
And everything else that can be considered entertainment (with education at times as well).
Creative expression runs the world and hearing different:
And more on a variety of topics is what connects us. A lack of freedom of speech would stand in the way of this and things would be bland and robotic.
All of this would happen in private, and people would be starved of interesting things they’d otherwise know about or be exposed to if freedom of speech wasn’t a thing.
In the internet era with:
- An attempt to control and manipulate.
And other things along those lines, freedom of speech is a big debate and many are fighting for it. And rightfully so.
The greedy few can’t stand in the way of the bigger picture and what’s important to most of us.
2. Freedom of consequences
Here comes the hypocritical portion of the whole “freedom of speech” argument.
And speak out the most when it comes to freedom of speech often wanna say the most outrageous shit without consequences.
Take racists on Twitter for example. The moment Elon Musk bought the platform and walked through the front door, Freedom of Speech was one of the biggest things on his mind.
It was one of the things he kept prattling on about.
A lot of people on Twitter took that to mean they can now be:
- Freely racist.
- Outright disrespectful in the context of religion, race, etc.
And to no one’s surprise, the first thing was racist comments towards the black community. Because they can’t stop thinking about us when we’re not even in the same room.
This is the hypocrisy of freedom of speech
There’s a difference between having the right to say what you want, and not expecting there to be consequences when you say the most outrageous, racist, disrespectful, and denigrating shit a person could say.
Facing consequences for this does not “hurt” freedom of speech like gaslighters in this scenario will claim. And it doesn’t stand in the way of a society that encourages free speech either.
What it rightfully stands in the way of is people who cross the line and abuse the system of “freedom of speech” at someone else’s expense to a toxic degree.
3. Everyone has their own individualities
No one person is the same in a copy-and-paste context. Not unless they act like everyone else in the exact same way that is.
I like sweet fruits like Mangos more than Raspberries, Redcurrants, or blackcurrants which are too sour.
I like anime, creativity, and all forms of music as long as I enjoy it, having my own space, but also travelling to specific places. I also love seaside towns and doing business online.
But the way I do these things is unique to me because of how I think about things, how I approach it, how I was raised, etc.
I say that to say freedom of speech is necessary because of these facts. As individuals, the last thing you want is to be restricted as far as your thoughts and opinions.
By restrictions, I mean not even being able to have your say.
If we weren’t individuals like certain animals or vertebrae, this would be irrelevant because we’d all think as a unit. But that’s not the case at all.
We have self-awareness and independent thought no matter how hard certain companies and governments try to “censor” it.
Freedom of Speech is necessary for this reason.
Relevant: 15+ Things That Inspire Creativity
4. The manipulation of freedom of speech
Depending on who has the most power or the most influence, freedom of speech can be turned on its head and twisted to mean things they don’t mean.
YouTubers and the clown show they run on that platform is a good example. Certain YouTubers who claim to be about freedom of speech will attack others’ freedom of speech if they don’t agree with it.
If they have bigger platforms than those whose free speech they don’t like, they’ll attempt to get them banned, suspended, copyright strikes, harassed, or whatever else to prop up their own glass egos.
This goes beyond YouTube though. People in the mainstream media like FOX NEWS do this type of shit as well.
Remember what happened when they didn’t like Joe Rogan’s thoughts on COVID?
Or something of the sort.
The fact Joe Rogan gets:
- More coverage.
- More leverage.
- More numbers and views.
- And more attention.
As well as being more trusted than bullshit mainstream outlets like Fox News (or the like) lead to them trying to assassinate his character. And stand in the way of his free speech in effect.
That’s the whole point of cancel culture. It’s to shut down someone you don’t like so you can eliminate their ability to speak freely by destroying their livelihood or ruining their reputation.
Which forces them to stay quiet and be a good little pet that does as their told.
5. Cancel Culture
Continuing from the last point, this is also another example of freedom of speech being used in a way that’s hypocritical and contradictory.
This applies more to those who try to cancel others through:
- Fake rumours.
- Allegations that can’t be proven.
And other methods where the ones doing the cancelling are free to say what they want while insisting the person they dislike should NOT be allowed to do the same.
This is different to my point about freedom of consequences.
In this case, they’re anonymous so they escape consequences, or they’re not anonymous and they escape consequences because of fear tactics and peer pressure.
Either way, you look at it, the whole thing is hypocritical and detrimental to the idea of free speech and what it’s supposed to represent and promote since it’s being manipulated in this example.