What Defines Ridiculous Levels of Free Speech?

The concept of free speech is often celebrated for its ability to foster a democratic and open society. However, there are instances where the exercise of this fundamental right can be detrimental to social harmony and even lead to legal and ethical issues. This article explores examples of ridiculous levels of free speech, addressing questions and clarifications from various perspectives on the limits of free speech.

Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson: A Case of Overly Restrictive Free Speech

Liberals often invoke the need to silence figures like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, advocating for stricter controls on free speech. One might ask, what exactly constitutes a ‘ridiculous level’ of free speech? The question itself is flawed as it presupposes that there can be a ‘ridiculous’ level of free speech, which is not a concept within legal or ethical frameworks.

North Korea: An Example of Low Levels of Free Speech

The statement by Deniz Mehmed about a ‘ridiculously low level of free speech’ is spot-on when referring to North Korea. In this repressive regime, the government strictly controls all forms of media and public discourse. The lack of freedom of expression in such an environment is stark and undeniable. However, it is important to understand that strict censorship and high control are not the same as a ridiculous level of free speech.

The Constitution and Interpretations of Free Speech

The phrase 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press' from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear in its intent. This means that the government cannot limit speech without a compelling reason. However, it does not mean that all speech is without restrictions. Considerations such as libel, slander, and incitement to violence are indeed part of the legal landscape.

Limitations of Free Speech

Formerly military engineer and current freedom of speech advocate, Loy Machedo, provides a useful framework for understanding the limitations of free speech. These include:

Marriage laws and consent Shouting 'death' or 'kill' based on lifestyle choices Celebrating or glorifying death for political differences Promoting hate and violence by groups like the KKK based on race or religion

Machedo’s examples highlight that while free speech is a fundamental right, it is not without boundaries. Speech that promotes harm, violence, or discrimination is not protected in many legal systems.

Money as Free Speech: The Impact of Corporations and Anonymity

A significant shift in the concept of free speech occurred with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court ruled that political spending is a form of free speech, and as such, corporations and individuals can spend unlimited amounts on political advertisements without disclosing the source of funding. This means that those with more money can have a greater, sometimes anonymous, influence over public discourse.

These insights raise questions about the balance between free speech and the potential for undemocratic influence. The proliferation of anonymous and corporate voices can distort the public conversation and inundate the public sphere with unchecked opinions.

Conclusion: Balancing Free Speech and Social Harmony

The concept of free speech is multifaceted and indispensable to a democratic society. However, it is crucial to recognize that the exercise of this right must be balanced with the need to maintain social harmony and prevent harm. The examples discussed here illustrate that while free speech is a cherished right, it is not absolute and must be carefully regulated to protect individuals and society at large.

Keywords: free speech, limits of free speech, ridiculous free speech