On the Subject of Free Speech Online

Last edited: October 16, 2021 1:38 PM

Good is just a perspective

When Kabul fell to the Taliban in recent weeks, outsiders more often than not believe that the move was a significant step backwards for Afghanistan as a nation, and labelling them as ‘militants’ and ‘terrorists’ seem second nature to many. However, from an insider’s perspective, they more often than not governed the state better than the quote, “distant and corrupt Afghan central government”.

For the more geeky ones out there, the Rebel Alliance was always portrayed as the harbinger of justice and freedom, but from the perspective of the Galactic Empire, they were merely a group of radicals that posed a threat to the order and stability it has spent years trying to establish.

Indeed, it must be worth noting that there is no objective definition of the word ‘good’ in this world, online or otherwise. What society deems ‘good’ is simply what the majority of the populace believe is ‘good’. Therefore it is not common for states to have different notions of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

Therefore, by imposing laws on freedom of speech on online platforms, we are upholding only one perspective of ‘good’, and discarding the others, and who is one to decide that? No one can.

Imposing laws hinders good

Not only that, governing freedom of speech online is introducing an invisible filter to the digital world, one that tints the views of the individual. This filter subconsciously influences the opinions of the non-consenting individual, and steers them away from their pursuit of ‘good’.

It pre-conditions netizens to believe that the Taliban and the Galactic Empire are ‘evil’. Maybe what these factions do is ‘right’, but this perspective is seldom, if not never heard, because what we hear is only what the law wants you to hear. What disagrees with the law is almost guaranteed a trip to the chopping block and will never surface.

Indeed, if online spaces are already inherently echo chambers as it is, allowing the enforcement of legislation governing free speech only exacerbates the problem.

Concluding

In short, allow even a single law to govern free speech online results in the condensation of beliefs to a single perspective of ‘good’, not only by culling unorthodox doctrine, but also by preventing their emergence in the first place. This inevitably prevents the silenced from pursuing their own version of ‘good’ and is therefore undesirable. Side opposition has to address this glaring hole before presenting their case.

Thank you.