This post expresses the views and opinions of the author(s) and not necessarily that of 2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News management or staff.
What is the purpose of free speech? Not the definition of free
speech, but the purpose behind it.
The definition of
free speech is to convey facts or opinions to the general public, but
generally excludes the use of
obscenity’s, unsubstantiated malicious defamatory remarks, and
threats.
The purpose of free
speech is the free exchange of facts and opinions, and to openly
debate the merits of those facts and
opinions in an open forum where people who don’t share you’re
view are likely to be able to hear them
and debate.
For the last couple
thousand years there have only been two main forums that have
fulfilled the purpose of free speech,
institutions of higher learning, and taverns. There are other
venues, such as town halls and such, but
they’re sporadic, you can’t go there any day of the week.
News media and
social media operate under the protections of free speech, but they
do not fully fulfill the purpose of free
speech. It is important to note that the Constitution lists freedom
of speech and freedom of the press separately in the first amendment.
Our founding fathers knew that freedom of the press, while
important, did not fulfill all of the purpose of freedom of speech,
and that likewise, freedom of speech
may not give adequate protection to report a story critical of
government.
News stories must
pass editorial review before being released, and the editorial staff
must act under the guidance of the owners. News outlets set a
political tone or image of themselves, and viewers/readers know stories will be
biased towards whatever side the publication leans to. News outlets
express the opinions in line with the owners/editors, and some allow
opinions with opposing views, but they are not an open platform
for debate.
At first glance social media appears to be an open platform for debate, but that’s a deception. Debate requires a
thoughtful exchange of ideas and equally thought out rebuttal’s. Social media is
designed around short provocative statements and equally provocative
responses.
I haven’t been on
social media for over a decade, but I don’t see any indication that
it has changed since that time. I
have never seen, and I challenge anyone to show me on any social
media platform, a true thoughtful
debate of ideas where each side gave detailed explanations of their
positions.
The other problem
with social media not fulfilling the purpose of free speech, is that
for the average user in the average situation, it’s not an open
platform. Tik Tok is the best example of this, but all platforms do
this to varying degrees, and that is that algorithms in the software
tend to segregate users into blocks based on
what they’ve interacted with in the past. So if you look at a
Democrats post, they’ll show you more Democrats posts, if you look
at an environmentalists post, it’ll show you more environmentalists
posts and so on.
The only time you
see something out of your sphere of interest is when it’s trending,
and the only way to trend is to be inflammatory. So regardless of
which side of the argument you’re on, you’re either going to see
a trending post that sets you off, or an inflammatory response to it
that sets you off.
It’s not that
social media permits inflammatory rhetoric, it’s that social media
can’t exist in it’s present form without it. Asking social media
companies to help tone down the rhetoric is like promoting an arsonist to fire
chief.
The left has
systematically shut down free speech on campuses not just in the US,
but around the world. That attack started nearly 100 years ago, is
well documented, and is on going.
The attacks on free
speech on campus aren’t just in the realm of political ideology,
but in almost
every aspect of
science. Researchers are not allowed to question subjects that the
left considers to be “Settled
Science”, such as global warming, climate change, the origins of
Covid, critical race
theory and many
other topics. There is no such thing as settled science, there is
only stagnated science if open debate is
not allowed. An earth centered universe was settled science before
Galileo, and remained official
church doctrine for 300 years after his death. The Auto Pen
administration forced
social media
platforms, including Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, to censor anyone
not inline with administration
positions on Covid and climate change among other topics. That
administration also denied research
grants to anyone who had ever questioned the science of vaccines,
climate change,
and a whole host of
other areas of legitimate scientific research, even if the current
grant application didn’t involve any
of those subjects.
The last bastion of
free speech, the neighborhood bar, has been under bi-partisan attack
since the 80’s.
No other venue in
history has been as instrumental to promoting civil discourse between
different segments of a
society. The local bar was where you saw and eventually got to know
people with views different from your
own. It doesn’t happen at other public venues because there is no
interaction.
The attacks on
neighborhood bars have occurred under the guise of health and safety,
trying to curtail alcohol abuse and
DUI/DWI. States and local
jurisdictions have systematically forced the closing of neighborhood
bars in favor of bar/restaurant establishments and microbrewery’s
and winery’s. None of these types of establishments promote open social
interaction of a cross section of a neighborhood. Bar/restaurant
type of establishments discourage conversation with anyone not seated
at your table. And microbrewery’s and winery’s tend to have a
very homogeneous clientele, so you’re really not going to meet
anyone outside you’re own political sphere.
The whole health and
safety aspect doesn’t fly, because a person can still go out and
drink to intoxication. Closing the neighborhood bar in favor of a
large bar/restaurant also increases DUI/DWI in three ways, first
fewer people are within walking distance, second if a person does
make the mistake of driving, they have to drive a lot further,
increasing the risk of accidents, and third, with the ever increasing
rise in property crime, fewer people are inclined to leave their
vehicle across town over night to take a cab home, making them more
likely to drive that longer distance to get home.
So it really appears
to me that the ultimate goal behind the closing of the neighborhood
bar is first and foremost the curtailment of free speech.
Rights exist as a means to ensure we have an opportunity to fulfill our obligations. The right to free speech exists because we have an obligation to promote what is best for our community, our country, and it's citizens, as well as bringing attention to things that may do harm. If your words and actions shut down any response from those with different opinions or ideas, you may be protected by free speech laws, but you are not really engaging in free speech.
These are my
opinions, I wish I could think of any venue where I could express
them AND have a free and open debate about them, but there is not a
single public bar left in my town of 38,000.
I shared drafts of
this article with a couple people and asked them for suggestions on
which venue to post it to. They
both said it would be well received in a variety of conservative
publications. But in my opinion
that wouldn’t fulfill the purpose of free speech, which is to be
able to express ones opinions in a
thoughtful manor to those who don’t necessarily share it. It will
be interesting to see what the staff and
readers of the Alamogordo Town News consider a thoughtful and
reasoned rebuttal.
89° and Sunny
