My Personal Stand on Freedom of Speech

Please note the word “personal” in the title. Often when I discuss freedom of speech, people respond with comments on what the law says about freedom of speech. The responses sometimes differ based on the country. These are my beliefs about how I should support freedom of speech personally. They represent my own contributions, not something mandated by law.

Background

Early in life, even before my teens, I was quite combative and always ready to argue about what I believed. One of my formative experiences as a teenager was arguing international politics with people in Guyana. Generally, foreigners shouldn’t comment on politics in a country where they are guests. However, as a teenager, I got by with it. More importantly, I learned something important about perspective that has stuck with me.

People with different backgrounds, in different countries will have a different perspective. This perspective is not inferior to my own. Rather it is just different. Guyana had recently gained its independence after a long colonial period. The country also had to deal with a world largely richer and more powerful militarily. Guyana provided a different perspective.

I don’t believe that truth is ultimately relative. But as finite people with limited perspective we can only reach for that objective reality. It’s very valuable for us to take the time to actually comprehend someone else’s perspective. Comprehending doesn’t require agreement. What it requires is that one can take in some of that perspective. I had the pleasure of learning from my Guyanese elders about a different perspective on imperialism, the middle east, China/Taiwan, and other such issues.

The Requirement for Free Speech

My experience brought new perspective, but I continued to regard debate as central. How did one test ideas? Debate. Go at it hammer and tongs and you’ll be able to test the boundaries and the inner structure of your knowledge and ideas.

Free speech is an absolute necessity to carry out such an enterprise. If certain ideas are considered out of bounds, it’s impossible to get a complete and fair combined expression.

Note that this process, as I saw it, was not one of equally informing one another. I had a number of people with whom I had such dialog. But I was perfectly willing to debate vigorously with someone I knew would dismiss every idea. I expressed those ideas because I had the challenge of expressing them. It also gave me the opportunity to see how they landed in someone else’s world.

I will note that I was also very political. I registered to vote as soon as I was able to do so and immediately signed up as a precinct captain. I was a captain with nobody but myself to command, but I got involved and active. I spent my time on election day debating with others at the polls.

In my experience, however, I can’t recall actually changing anyone’s mind through debate. This doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that debate is worthless. Rather, it wasn’t accomplishing what I hoped it would accomplish. There was also the question of time. If you have an opinion on pretty much everything (which I did), and you are anxious to debate, it will take time. As the online opportunities grew, so did the consumption of my time.

I was online before it was a major thing. I ran a computer Bulletin Board System (BBS) in the late 80s that was rather popular for its time. I got in political debates there. I was on Compuserve when we accessed it by phone, and I got into plenty of debates there.

Some Restrictions

I learned quite quickly that while free speech was good, there was more to it than just allowing expression. There were times and places. Online that meant various discussion boards. For these boards we had rules. Often these rules were simply subject matter. What is the purpose of this discussion group? If you want to talk about something else, go somewhere else. A good rule of freedom of expression is that if it’s your space, you rule the expression.

Then there’s time. For someone with as many opinions as I had (and have), I needed a way to restrict the time spent. I began to tell some people who challenged me that I would have to give them the last word as I didn’t have time to pursue the issue. Many people find it difficult to let a discussion or debate go online. It can often become a time-consuming black hole. You need to learn to thicken your skin. Just ignore it when the other party declares victory and does a cyber-dance on your virtual grave.

Energion Publications

This brings me to my founding of Energion Publications. I founded this company to have a common publisher for a broad range of ideas within the Christian community. My previous experiences had led me to believe that while it had its purposes, debate was not going to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish. The idea was listening and testing one’s ideas in relation to other ideas. I don’t recall that “echo chamber” was that common of an expression at the time, but avoiding an echo chamber was my intent.

Over the years I have greatly reduced my debating time, and also limited my commentary to a much smaller range of issues. I do this because I want to do as well as I can with what I can share. By publishing the works of others, I can help ensure that a variety of viewpoints are represented.

Still Free Speech

My key point, and main reason for writing this is that I continue to believe the same things about free speech as I did back in college and before, including the additional lessons about spaces. Not every space has to have all speech, but there is value in keeping the walls as far away as possible.

A number of people wonder how I can publish material I disagree with. Since I include a variety of viewpoints, it’s clear that some of the material will represent viewpoints other than my own. I wouldn’t be carrying out the mission I established for my company or my own goals in life if I did not.

I do not find this difficult at all. I enjoy hearing various ideas. I enjoy helping people present them as well as possible. I enjoy being part of the process of presenting those ideas so that others can test their own ideas against them and learn. If I look like I’m enjoying a discussion in which an author is saying something you know I don’t believe, that is precisely what I’m doing. And while I may ask clarifying questions, I won’t start debating that person. That’s not what I’m here for.

From a strictly secular point of view I call this respecting other people and their own abilities. When I decide to protect others from hearing “bad” points of view, I don’t respect them for their ability to reject those points of view. From a spiritual standpoint, I believe in the ability of the Spirit of Truth to do better at influencing people than I could.

To those who will point out all the evidence of people failing in either of those, I would first point out that your judgment is fallible as is mine, but also the substantial failure of control mechanisms to actually control the human heart and soul.

Respect

Ultimately, I think this is about respect. I respect another’s individuality and right to an opinion, even one that might annoy me. Especially one that might annoy me. I respect the spaces that others set up.

I make my own discussion spaces as open as I possibly can and still carry on the discussion.

(Featured image generated by Jetpack AI. I incorporated several AI suggestions in the text, but rejected a number of others.)