Nowadays, freedom of speech has been framed as a right-wing ideal. Accusations of the scary ‘liberal elite’ infringing on the rights of so-called ’truthers’ on social media and in wider society through bans or prosecution are a convenient way to garner a cheap support base in justifying their, in some cases, misinformation and, in worse, hateful, racist, homophobic and violent speech. However, history shows the roots of true free speech are planted in progressive politics. For the left to reclaim this important value and end the damaging assumption that the left is against free speech, this debate must be reframed.
Where would left-wing politics be without equality and social justice? Free speech is vital to ensuring both those values are observed. Many progressive movements, to achieve greater equality, began as unpopular speech, and without the right to express controversial or offensive ideas, they would’ve struggled to get off the ground. Social justice focuses on challenging and removing oppressive hierarchies, and free speech is the most available tool for achieving this. Free speech is also inherently egalitarian. Free speech gives marginalised communities a voice; the privileged will always have tools beyond self-expression to get their way, but the weakest in society have only their vote, voice, and placards.
As mentioned previously, many of the 20th-century progressive movements began as unpopular speech. This is because movements that challenge the existing power structures are very often unpopular before they enter the mainstream. Opposition to racial segregation and discrimination was unpopular for much of 20th-century America; discrimination was entrenched in wide parts of law and institutions. This means that, to achieve racial equality, the civil rights movement resorted to publication and collective demonstration to make its point that racial equality was essential to a just society.
Furthermore, the civil rights movement faced arrests, surveillance and intimidation on an institutional scale in attempts to suppress it. This is therefore evidence that the left should be sceptical of giving governments broader power to define acceptable political expression, and that it should instead be left to society to accept or reject.
Speech can cause real harm. Hate speech, targeted harassment, incitement of violence and defamation can discriminate, discourage participation and destroy people’s livelihoods. This can intimidate the marginalised and minorities out of expression and is therefore directly contrary to equal free speech itself. This is why it is very important to be careful with where and how we draw the line between harmful speech that should be outlawed and unpopular or offensive speech. When someone is offended, upset or angry at a statement, it is not equivalent to speech that causes actual harm. For example, making targeted threats against an individual or group of immigrants will cause serious harm. In contrast, a controversial argument about immigration may be highly offensive while still being a legitimate political point. Linking to my example of the civil rights movement, defining harmful speech too broadly can suppress ideas that challenge existing power if they are deemed too uncomfortable. A progressive position on free speech is one that recognises the serious harm some speech can cause while also recognising the caution necessary when distinguishing legitimate from harmful speech.
The practical benefit of allowing legitimate unpopular speech is that we can better defeat them in confrontation rather than silence. On the left, I think unfairly, we have a reputation synonymous with the lazy but unfortunately popular terms ‘cancel culture’ and ‘woke’. Terms that, in the popular consciousness, are seen as signs of the left dismissing, pushing away and suppressing views they don’t like. Therefore, while I believe both these idioms are disguises for dismissing social justice and equality, the left needs to do more to confront opposing views to such an extent that opponents can no longer accuse the left of shying away from debate. Unpopular but legitimate political views that are suppressed will not go unsupported. Refusing to confront these views means their weaknesses go unexposed, inaccuracies go unchallenged, and arguments go uncontested, allowing them to develop. Whereas, when this speech is allowed, the left can persuade those who encounter it with rebuttal. For progress to be achieved, established ideas must be questioned, and this is only possible with free speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean all opinions must be allowed; it merely accepts that disagreement is unavoidable. The left has an opportunity to reclaim free speech, but it must be approached with caution. The line between free and unfree speech is fine but achievable, nonetheless.
