The frustration of so-called 'free speech'
Nothing is simple
If there’s one thing Elon Musk has an insatiable appetite for, it’s attention of the wrong sort. In the latest, he’s tangling with the Brazilian courts over misinformation/disinformation on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, in a battle he seems unlikely to win. He claims the judge is suppressing opposing political speech.[1]
(Yawn.) I will set aside Musk’s own dubious, often inflammatory, and hypocritical implementation of so-called “free speech” on X. Here, as is nearly always the case, whenever anyone says the word “free,” we must ask for whom, to do what, to whom, at whose expense. The word is much too often a canard for abuse, exploitation, and externalized costs (“free markets,” for example).
I have been grappling with the questions surrounding free speech for a while. It’s a subject that leaves me supremely grumpy because, frankly, I’ve failed to find a neat answer.
There are at least four intertwined issues. One is that free speech, also academic freedom, allows for different perspectives and better decision-making. It is, in fact, essential for good governance. In this frame, people argue earnestly and—hopefully (not so much lately)—can reach a good settlement.
Another issue is abuse. Unfettered free speech can shut down other voices through harassment, intimidation, or embarrassment. Those other voices are no less important simply because they’re suppressed.
The third is incitement, as recently happened in Britain,[2] with a large overlap with abuse, but entails an actual call to action, as indeed happened on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.. when Donald Trump incited a coup attempt. In terms of rational argumentation, it accomplishes nothing. On the ground, it can be devastating—people can and do get killed for it—and for absolutely no good reason.
The last is the flip side of the first: misinformation/disinformation, affecting for the worse the decisions that people and politicians make.
Part of the problem with misinformation/disinformation is that there is no single reliable source of all information. In terms of epistemology, we don’t even really know what truth is: There are several theories of truth, but not one of them withstands scrutiny (positivism/scientific method fails even on its own terms, arbitrarily excluding putatively “unreliable” evidence in a form of selective observation).
Even with careful methodology carefully executed, the best we can hope for is an approximation of truth—and the difference between that approximation and that truth is a window of uncertainty that allows misinformation/disinformation to flourish.
The result of all this is a seemingly inescapable fumbling of free speech issues. And I’m at a complete loss on how to make it better.
[1] Sofia Ferreira Santos, “Musk's X banned in Brazil after disinformation row,” British Broadcasting Corporation, August 30, 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o
[2] Ishaan Tharoor, “Britain’s riots put spotlight on far-right misinformation,” Washington Post, August 9, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/09/britain-riots-misinformation-elon-musk/