This article was written for Liberty Itch; the website by and for Australian Libertarians.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right in any democratic society. It serves as a cornerstone of open dialogue, intellectual debate, and progress. In recent years it has become very clear that those in power view free speech as a threat to their power and a hindrance to their plans. The move to censor free speech has become particularly prevalent on social media platforms.
To safeguard against arbitrary restrictions on free speech, any restrictions should be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, applied impartially and without discrimination. Grounds for restricting speech such as threats of harm to other people, incitement to violence, national security and public health must be carefully balanced to protect individual rights.
Creating confusion surrounding what constitutes harm or violence has significant consequences for free speech and democracy. By labelling certain types of speech as hate speech, harmful or even violent, freedom of expression is easily curtailed because people are afraid that this might result in punishment.
We are being led to believe that using an incorrect pronoun and misgendering a person is considered hate speech or violence on social media. In fact, it is not a crime in Australia to misgender but when definitions of harm, violence and hate speech become vague and subject to arbitrary interpretation, people are left uncertain about what constitutes acceptable speech. The confusion itself leads to people self-censoring and governments can easily exploit these broad definitions to control the speech of individuals with differing opinions, eroding democratic values.
Certain ideologies not only seek to limit freedom of expression but also seek to compel speech. This is why the transgender movement and arguments over what constitutes a woman have become such an issue. Individuals are pressured to use specific pronouns chosen by others and disregard their own reality and life experiences. Threats of being de-platformed, de-monetised or denied basic services such as banking contribute to a climate of fear and self-censorship. When we see prominent figures being punished for freely expressing their opinions, such as Robert F Kennedy Junior, Jordan Peterson and recently Nigel Farage who had his bank accounts cancelled in the United Kingdom, this serves as a warning to all not to do the same.
Western societies currently have widespread censorship imposed via social media platforms. Elon Musk’s advocacy for free speech on Twitter, has faced backlash, with governments scrambling to enact legislation to curtail this freedom. New legislation across most Western jurisdictions such as Australia with the Online Safety Act 2021 and the European Union with the Digital Service Act, threaten platforms like Twitter with fines of up to 6% of annual turnover (EU) if they fail to remove “harmful content”, revealing an authoritarian approach to controlling information and public discourse.
Mark Zuckerberg on the other hand has just launched Threads, a platform seeking to restore online censorship. The media’s coverage of Threads has been extremely biased, promoting it as a positive move. By contrast they describe Musk as a controversial figure and characterise free speech as a right-wing ideology rather than a fundamental human right.
Traditional leftist Russel Brand has been a champion of the move to restore free speech. He also revealed that he realised he is a libertarian. As he correctly stated, free speech is not a partisan issue or an ideology, it is a fundamental right. Brand has gained a large following on YouTube but admits to censoring himself on the platform to avoid being de-platformed or de-monetised. He begins his show by stating that he will be on YouTube for the first 15 minutes and will then move to Rumble, the “Home of Free Speech” where he is free to discuss issues that would have him censored on YouTube. Brand is far from the only high-profile YouTuber who engages in self-censorship, the same can be seen from other popular free speech shows such as JP Sears, the Duran and Redacted.
A recent event called the Censorship Industrial Complex hosted by Brand and the two men involved in uncovering the Twitter files, Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger shed light on the issue of censorship on social media platforms at the behest of governments.
Taibbi stated that self-censorship is designed to pre-empt people from having dangerous thoughts. He testified to US Congress that Stanford University, took information from social media and aggregated all things regarding covid and made recommendations to twitter as to how to deal with it. Stanford advised Twitter to consider as standard misinformation stories of true vaccine injuries and side effects that could fuel hesitancy. This censorship was the direct result of the US and other world government’s campaign to silence those who voice perspectives that deviate from the accepted narrative. By silencing dissent and controlling the flow of information, the government undermined democratic principles and hindered informed decision-making.
The actions taken by governments, social media platforms, and the media to stifle dissenting voices and impose censorship demonstrate the urgent need for action. We must advocate for transparent laws that are reasonable, necessary, and applied impartially. We must demand that governments respect the rights of individuals to express their opinions, even when they challenge prevailing narratives.
Additionally, individuals and content creators must support and embrace alternative platforms that prioritise free speech, such as Rumble, which offer a space for open dialogue and the exchange of diverse ideas. By refusing to engage in self-censorship and promoting platforms that uphold the principles of free speech, we can reclaim the right to express ourselves without fear of retribution.