The Freedom of Speech

Note: This is an opinion piece. There is no real definitive information in it, unless specifically noted. Links are given to certain websites for references.

The Freedom of Speech, as described in the US constitution specifies the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Holy Bible, itself, mentions speech in various ways. One of the ten commandments states, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” — Exodus 20:16 (Deuteronomy 5:20 being a reiteration). “Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.” — Proverbs 18:21. And the following verses from the Gospel of John, speaking of Jesus, himself: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1; “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” — John 14:6. Those are only examples from the Holy Bible.

Of course, the Holy Bible brings forth the idea of bad uses of speech. At the top of the list, blaspheming (or profaning) God’s name (Exodus 20:7). Next would be the use of the tongue to spread lies / malicious slander. Below that are other acts (cursing, grumbling, disputes, contentiousness, scoffing, flattery, making false promises, using vulgar language, and others). Of course, though, transgressions are transgressions. There’s no “ranking” to transgressions, so to speak.

Speech in the Bible is not defined by “love” or “hate speech”. The two absolutes, whether by act, thought or speech, are ‘good’ or ‘evil’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘holy’ or ‘unholy’, ‘righteous’ or ‘unrighteous’. But, the Liberal Left who do control social medias do include the doctrine of “hate speech”. Let’s get a quick look at a definition of “Hate Speech”. According to the page on Wikipedia:

Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation”.

Today’s ‘technocratic’ society (ie: that of Social Media) does not adhere to such ideals of Freedom of Speech, nor give recognition to it since these Social Medias are made by men (or ‘people’, if you want the PC — Politically Correct version) and the ‘traditions of men’ (as the Holy Bible calls them — see Mark 7:8) — extra rules on top of that which may not even be necessary — reign supreme on those said medias. Twitter may say they support free speech as such, ie:

Twitter’s mission is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information, and to express their opinions and beliefs without barriers. Free expression is a human right — we believe that everyone has a voice, and the right to use it. Our role is to serve the public conversation, which requires representation of a diverse range of perspectives.

But they continue on with the following statement, denoting afterwards that they have rules in place to stop such “abuse”:

We recognise that if people experience abuse on Twitter, it can jeopardize their ability to express themselves. Research has shown that some groups of people are disproportionately targeted with abuse online. This includes; women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, marginalized and historically underrepresented communities. For those who identity with multiple underrepresented groups, abuse may be more common, more severe in nature and have a higher impact on those targeted.

See the website here for more information.

Such ‘rules’ are flawed, since they are made by people. Sure, some rules are well deserved to keep order. But, in other ways, there are the rules that are not needed, those that “protect” certain people. These “categories” or “groups”, as seen in the quote from Twitter’s webpage, can range from race to religion to gender and sexual preferences. If anyone says something that is deemed as “offensive” (even if factually true) about a certain “protected category / group”, it would be categorized as “hate speech” and the offender deemed as a “pariah” in the “court of popular opinion”.

From the ‘technocratic’ societies of Social media to the real world, we have the United States of America — the metaphorical last and only ‘bastion’ of Free Speech in the West / Western culture (which is kind of ironic, considering most social media platforms are created in USA, but not that ironic since their located specifically in California, which is primarily dominated by Democrats). The war that is being waged in the nation is one of taking an amendment away from the people. Two, actually — the right to free speech (First Amendment), and the right to bear arms (Second Amendment). As of this current day (or earlier), it has come to stand that there are “hate speech” laws in place in most of the West, when it comes to speech in public. The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand all have such laws in position to stop such “hate speech” from ever being lawful. European nations have them also.

The one thing that people do not understand is that such “hate speech” laws, or the concept of them actually originated from certain concepts that Marx had and were adopted by Communist USSR. See here for more information. The TL;DR (Too Long, Don’t Read) being Communist USSR feared dissent, hence making such laws to discourage such dissent was best for, not only their political control, but their regime as a whole — comply to the law or suffer in the Gulag (which at that time inhabited ~2 million people).

The main idea, I believe, that should be taken away from this is that human beings are intelligent, God-made entities (for me, at least). By taking a certain portion of a person’s abilities away — ie: the ability to express themselves to the fullest via their own mental faculties and their own tongue — you’re basically legitimizing a culture of, not freedom, but oppression. And, oppression of a person’s tongue can be a bad thing if they need to speak up on an various issues, issues that could affect the nation at large.

--

--

--

Main interests: Politics and video games. I have others, but they are numerous. I like to write opinion pieces.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Ruth Bader Ginsburg aka Notorious RBG C

I outed my brother: A story about intent vs. impact

The Future is Female: Nozipho January-Bardill is Paving the Way for Women in the Boardroom

My Son is a Misogynist — Please Help

Why Justice is blind?

Women Aren’t Allowed to be Annoying: How Misogyny Excused Chris Watts’ Crimes

Would you be surprised to hear defund the police might lead to having MORE cops on our streets, not…

I’m fine. You’re fine. We’re all fine.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
L. J. Critcher

L. J. Critcher

Main interests: Politics and video games. I have others, but they are numerous. I like to write opinion pieces.

More from Medium

The Dilemma of Humanity: How to Restore Our Fading Sense of Compassion

Literature Review: Athlete Ecosystem Mental Health — We All Need Support

Reviews on “Medicine and Empire: 1600–1960” published in 2013

Who did you meet?