Political Editorial by Bradley Jersak

Free speech

Credit: Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs Twitter

The ancient roots of ‘free speech’ emerge from the rise of democracy in Athens, where a conviction arose that leadership change could and should occur through elections rather than via violence or coercion. From those seeds grew the practice of meaningful public discourse on public matters and with that, the development of strategies of persuasive rhetoric as the nonviolent armory of speech.

More recently, the modern ‘free speech’ movement was birthed in England, where Parliamentary proceedings were secretive, and journalists of the day lobbied for the right to report, even minimally, on what was being debated and decided. Until then, such reporting was illegal and punishable, at times even by death. 

Proponents of free speech then and now know that free speech is costly speech. To exercise free speech in nations and societies where it is regarded as a criminal activity rather than a human right makes journalism a risky and noble vocation.   

From these backstories, we derive an important definition of ‘free speech’—"the ability to speak meaningfully about public affairs in the public square. The purpose of free speech is to enhance public discourse.”¹ 

Hate speech

Unfortunately, some want to expand the notion of ‘free speech’ into “I will say whatever I want, about anything I want, anywhere I want, without consequence,” … even if it creates hatred, damage, violence, or death. As if our right to speech were absolute and unbounded. By that argument, free speech becomes ‘hate speech.’

“Hate speech is a blasphemy of free speech”² and is, in fact, an act of violence. Note well: hate speech does not merely become so when it incites violence—it is violent in and of itself because violence is “any action that undermines the dignity of any other human being”³ (and beyond humans, as well). Thus, speech that serves as an assault on human dignity and creates a threat to their freedom and well-being is not ‘free speech’ at all—it is ‘hate speech.’

In Canada, we recognize that Holocaust denial is a form of‘ hate speech,’ forbidden in our classrooms, even when it doesn’t incite violence. Why? Because our culture has recognized that it does not meet the requirements of ‘free speech.’ It does not enhance public discourse under Canadian law. Rather, we see how it undermines Jewish dignity, security, and freedom. Thus, creating boundaries around hate speech is not so much censorship of ‘free speech,’ as it is the rigorous protection of ‘meaningful public discourse.’ Hate speech damages public discourse and diminishes the costly sacrifice by which free speech came about and what it hopes to achieve.   

Mischievous Speech

‘Mischievous speech’ is a subtle but dangerous form of hate speech. It may include ‘gaslighting’ to instigate a violent reaction or ‘dog whistles’ as a call to arms among radicals through suggestive lingo, stoking hatred and signaling permission to transgress other's rights. It is verbal vandalism in the name of pseudo-freedom.

Mischievous speech can also be labeled ‘dangerous speech’ because it dehumanizes, intimidates, and/or increases the risk of violence against (or even by) particular groups of people based on ethnic, religious, or racial identities, etc. The difficult task in a just society is knowing where to draw boundaries around dangerous speech and public assembly that balances the need to defend free speech and the right to protest while also preserving public safety and the security of affected communities.

Limits matter. Even America's expansive first amendment does not green-light the misuse of free speech to scream ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire), but one we would like to protect the rights of those who cry ‘fire’ when there is one. I'm speaking metaphorically. 

The Dangers of Infringement & Limits of Public Protest

‘Free speech’ societies recognize how important it is not to infringe on free speech or prevent people from publicly expressing their grievances, including the right to peaceful assembly where protest is not only necessary, but welcome. We are aware that censorship and suppression can inhibit pathways to resolving grievances peacefully and sometimes serves to escalate the risk of radicalization and violence.

On the other hand, free speech, strategic public protest, and civil disobedience are an art and a science that can be engaged effectively in the interest of justice, especially where we believe the powers that be are unjust, corrupt, or tyrannical (cf. Gene Sharp's works on Nonviolent Struggle).

…OR free speech (whether by heads of state or mobs in revolt) may also be thoroughly botched or even purposely shaped to devolve into propaganda, riots, looting, and assault. They deliberately manipulate and escalate crowds away from meaningful public debate into acts of hatred and hostility that polarize and destabilize democracies (by design). Nothing about that is ‘free speech.’ It is a perversion of free speech that needs to be called out and resisted by the populace, the politicians, and yes, even law enforcement (not goon squads), especially when the community and its most vulnerable are endangered.     

This political editorial by Bradley Jersak represent his personal opinions. They do not represent official views of other authors on Clarion or companies and ministries to whom he is contracted. 

[1] Conversation with David Goa (02-04-22). This post was inspired and informed by a conversation with David Goa, but I take responsibility for my interpretation and takeaways of that chat. 

[2] David Goa.

[3] Conversation with Andrew Klager (02-03-22).