The Primacy of Free Speech

I was recently at dinner with a friend discussing Elon Musk’s impending purchase of Twitter. As people do, we had different opinions on it. My friend was disappointed that Musk should choose to spend such a vast quantity on something so trivial as Twitter, when there were other problems to solve like climate, hunger, and poverty.

I instinctively disagreed with that assertion. I thought that Elon’s purchase of Twitter was not ‘trivial’ and actually was something incredibly important. My response (paraphrasing) was something like the following:

“Yes, there are lots of problems to be solved in the world, but I think that there is something primary about speech. Free speech seems like it underpins civilization, like an often overlooked base layer from which human progress springs. Twitter is an important platform for speech, I think Elon buying Twitter and ensuring its continued existence as a haven for free speech is in fact an important step that is required to solve the world’s ‘other’ problems. Summed up, I think free speech is a necessary precondition for Good.”

In the conversation, I had a difficult time building the case for my conclusion, “Free speech is a necessary precondition for Good.” I was unable to convince my friend of its merit. But the idea continued to nag me, and so I wrote this essay. Enjoy! – Ian

Is free speech a necessary precondition for Good?

Marc Andreessen recently tweeted a thread of quotes from an address Frederick Douglass delivered in Boston entitled, Plea for Freedom of Speech in Boston. Frederick Douglass was a former slave and is most well remembered for his role as an abolitionist and autobiographer. His speech was delivered days after another abolitionist event he was attending, also in Boston, was forcibly canceled by protestors. Given the events that preceded his delivery of the Plea for Freedom of Speech, it is not difficult to understand his motivations for speaking powerfully about the necessity of free speech. Below is a passage from that address.

“No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government.”

This quote serves as a useful starting point to explore my claim that free speech is a precondition for Good. In particular, I want to expand on his idea of free speech as “the great moral renovator of society”, as I am going to use it as the spine for my argument.

What does it mean to be a moral renovator of society?

When I first read the quote, I jumped to the conclusion that he was referring to free speech as a renovator of the morals in society. That free speech is the mechanism for moral improvement. But upon further thought, I interpret this statement another way. I think the term moral is being used as a descriptor for renovator. “Moral” is not the object of renovator, it is the modifier of renovator. Free speech is a moral renovator, not a renovator of morals.

What is a moral renovator?

Renovators are that which update and improve things. The act of renovation implies progress of some kind. But Douglass chose to be more specific. He regards free speech not just as a renovator, but as a moral renovator. Morals are standards for behavior and judgement that are concerned with right versus wrong, good versus evil. A moral renovator makes improvements guided by some standard of what is Good, what is right and just, what is moral.

Why does Douglass ascribe such importance to free speech and its role as moral renovator?

The answer that immediately comes to mind is that free speech was the most important tool that humanity had to dispose of slavery, slavery obviously being the most important societal ill that needed changing in his time. In another of his speeches, Douglass says the following:

“America may boast of her abilities to build forts to stand the fire of the enemy, but she shall never be able to drive back that moral force which shall send slavery tottering to its grave.”

What could that “moral force”, that “shall send slavery tottering to its grave” be, other than the condemning speech of the abolitionists and their supporters around the world?

Douglass considered speech more powerful than physical force in the fight against slavery. ”...forts to stand the fire...” but those forts can’t stop the onslaught of words. Douglass himself was proof of the power that free speech could bring to bear. He was the literal embodiment, considering that his freedom of speech was only granted once he escaped from slavery, and the words he spoke were powerful motivators for abolition.

Free speech was one of the forces that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. But was it a necessary precondition? Could slavery have ended without free speech?

I believe the answer is no, it could not have ended without free speech. I’ll seek to back this assertion up by addressing the question at a higher level, outside the context of 19th century America. Instead of asking was free speech necessary for the end of slavery, let’s generalize it back to the original prompt. Is free speech a necessary precondition for Good?

First, what is Good?

There are many ways to define Good. A moral utilitarian might say that Good is minimizing the total quantity of human suffering. Granting people access to food, clean water, and shelter, protecting private property, reducing diseases and violence — these things are all Good. A religious person might respond that Good is living in the way Jesus did, or treating others as you want to be treated, or abiding the Ten Commandments.

As different as those definitions might seem, and they are clearly distinct, I think most people share a moral instinct for what is Good. I believe people are more similar than different. At the risk of alienating some readers, but for the sake of my argument, I am going to use the utilitarian definition of Good, in which Good is achieved by reducing the quantity of human suffering. Given this definition, it is very easy to see how the abolition of slavery was Good.

Now, let’s explore how free speech sets the stage for its achievement.

The collection of human knowledge is a vast body of ideas accumulated by the human species over thousands of years, and passed down through successive generations. This knowledge consists of everything that humanity has considered useful enough to remember. The best ideas of Science, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Economics and the Arts are all contained therein. Broadly speaking, this knowledge is the bedrock of society as we know it.

But this collection of knowledge is not unchanging. It is an organism of ideas that are constantly updating. Old ideas are tossed out in favor of new ideas. Worse explanations are replaced by better explanations. In the words of Douglass, this knowledge is renovated continuously.

How is the body of knowledge renovated?

In some domains, such as science, the process for improvement is clearly defined.  In others, it is less clear. The renovation process for things like Religions and Politics is closer to evolutionary in nature, where the best ideas spread themselves due to some advantage they confer to society.

Regardless of how each domain evaluates new ideas, whether by the scientific method, or the stresses of time, they each require the same initial condition. The freedom for individuals to submit critiques of the existing collection of knowledge. Said another way, freedom of speech is the primary input for any renovation of knowledge.

It is worth noting that, by definition, the ideas that improve human knowledge are those that are not yet widely accepted. At first those ideas might be heretical. They might be offensive. They are the ideas most likely to be silenced in a world where free speech is not given its due.

Consider that in 17th century Italy, Galileo was forced to live under house arrest for the final nine years of his life for supporting the heliocentric theory of the universe, thereby rejecting the commonly accepted wisdom that the Earth was the center of the universe.

From Wikipedia: “heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas...” His statement was literally heretical— he was named an enemy of the church. Books were banned, and Galileo was not allowed to speak publicly about his ideas.

The collection of human scientific knowledge was clearly injured by this restriction to speech. Humanity, broadly defined, ignored Galileo’s contribution due to an unwillingness to hear new ideas, due to a disregard for the primacy of free speech.

What related scientific achievements were delayed, or never achieved due to this restriction in speech? What suffering was perpetuated because of this setback to the progress of science?

We will never know.

Galileo's story makes it clear that knowledge improves only when all ideas can be submitted for consideration— even those, especially those, considered heretical. Renovations to the collection of human knowledge are made at a rate proportional to the stress caused by competing ideas.

Free speech then is necessary to improve the domains of human knowledge, but how does this lead to Good?

Human suffering is reduced (i.e. Good happens) when humanity’s improved ideas translate into human action toward a better world.

Suffering is reduced when scientific discoveries help create new technologies that increase the productive capacity of farmland. When new materials and technologies are invented that reduce the cost of shelter. Suffering is reduced when new political structures free individuals from oppression. When a religion helps form bonds within a community and guide people to the highest Good. When an accurate knowledge of history helps humanity avoid repeating its mistakes.

Solving the problems humanity faces today will require new knowledge. If history is any indication, the human race is dependent on new knowledge for its survival. Today’s population would never survive using the agricultural techniques of the 18th century. Thomas Malthus wasn't crazy, he just didn't foresee technology.

All new knowledge starts as an idea, and humanity’s best ideas are only possible when free speech is protected.

Free speech is a necessary precondition for Good.

In writing this essay, I purposefully avoided some of the trickier topics of online censorship. Mark Zuckerberg's speech at Georgetown University in 2019  does a good job describing some of these challenges.

I instead chose to focus on the necessity of free speech in principle, and what its value is to society. I didn’t want to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

There are lots of other problems in the world, and I’m glad that there are people out there solving them head on. But I believe that we ought not lose sight of the importance of free speech, and its primacy to a progressing society. I believe that is why the United States preserved it as the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. And I’m glad that at least one platform will be fighting for it.