The Paradox of Free Speech in the Age of the Internet!

The internet has made it simpler than ever to communicate with others, allowing people to express their thoughts without first convincing media firms of their monetary worth. It also enables the discovery and dissemination of other people's points of view without the inconvenience of duplicating and mailing newspaper clippings. However, this ease of communication imposes additional constraints on the freedom component of free speech: the capacity to express ourselves freely to people we choose without fear of retaliation.

The first issue is that what was previously a challenging task - bringing our remarks to the attention of others - is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. A growing quantity of speech and its proxies (such as 'likes') are being automatically published to the globe. This is significant because how we convey our ideas and beliefs in conversation to specific people differs from how we present them to the world and strangers in general.

Speech is impromptu and fleeting, having no substance other than the air and the imperfect recollections of people around you. It is frequently part of an ongoing connection in which the parties know each other, have some goodwill, and may relate to shared knowledge and background. What is spoken may be directly directed to the other person's point of view and concerns, and both your faults and their misconceptions can be remedied as you go along without being held against you.

Publication, on the other hand, is built around the difficulty of general communication, and its benefits tend to be more defensive. Because the same form of words must transmit the same information to everyone, what is published must be written for no one in particular while still being understandable to all. Furthermore, one needs to have the option of selecting one's readers. Some will seek reasons to disagree with you, and if you care, you must load your work with preemptive clarifications and defenses against their potential arguments.

When every speech is published - fixed for all time and for all to see - all address encounters the issues highlighted by Plato. It can only function with your explanation and defense of your meaning. It must withstand the biting criticism of those without regard for you and are free to criticize it according to their criteria. Furthermore, because publications are considered to represent your predetermined viewpoints, both your character and your purpose are on trial. You will be blamed, not just corrected, for your errors and for misconceptions on the side of the reader, who is frequently unaware of the original context and disinterested in learning it.

The worldwide nature of online publication has exacerbated the problem by making it more straightforward for individuals to find a speech that offends them, even after they have uttered it. Over the last 20 years, the impacts of unavoidable public exposure on public personalities have been seen. Politicians have been more cautious about what they say, fearing that every misstep or tweet may be stripped of context and used to humiliate and ruin them years later. As a result, rather than increased accountability, political communication has been stifled.

The first threat to free speech posed by the internet is that we no longer have control over who hears what we say and what they do with it. We must anticipate that our remarks will be published and accessible to anyone. The second issue is the reaction to automatic publication.

Counter-speech has been weaponized in new or cheaper ways by those who like yelling at others - self-righteous, indignant, and cruel trolls - using the same technology that allows our comments to follow us around whether we like it. The power of cyber terrorism significantly raises the price of speaking out or responding. It empowers a small vocal minority to suppress speakers and ideas that offend them while refusing to accept responsibility for their use of the freedom of expression.

The new dictatorship of 'political correctness' that we live in is not a tyranny of government or societal majority, but rather a tyranny of the minority, of numerous little tribes that each feel they have a veto over what everyone else in the world says. Indignant people mix moralism with morality, which focuses on maintaining social rules and relies on psychological emotions like disgust and anger. Moralism contradicts and destroys true character by compelling individuals to oppose universal moral principles they claim to believe. It dehumanizes their targets and portrays them as monsters responsible for their demise. Honest errors are impossible to make, and moral progress is thwarted by wrath.

Anger motivates people to act against universal moral values in which they claim to believe, but it also prevents moral progress. Investigating what morality demands is a different enterprise than maintaining present rules, and it necessitates an open mind to diverse points of view and the flexibility to make mistakes. Speech is essential in this context because it distinguishes the speaker as a friend or foe. Naturally, opponents cannot be tolerated, and individuals cannot be simply incorrect.

The authority of the indignants' new political correctness is limited. It can only limit the free expression of people who are mentally or financially vulnerable to a social media shame mob. Humans are social beings, and few people can endure the onslaught of personal abuse unleashed by a social media shame mob. University students, for example, have long terrified governments because they are idealistic, can readily organize, and have so little to threaten. However, only some people are concerned with their reputation. Some people are just vain, while others are politically driven and socially backed by a group that may provide an alternate picture of themselves as heroes.

People need to make a livelihood and most of those who speak do it as amateurs in their spare time. They are easily dissuaded or penalized by placing their employer or consumers under reputational pressure. Only some firms are ready to support their workers' right to free expression outside of work hours if it jeopardizes their operations or reputation. This means that morally outraged cyberterrorism is only successful against individuals who are either solitary or members of their groups.

Moralists' wrath is never satiated, and their zealotry pushes them to scour the internet for material that will upset them and then publicize it to one another. The enraged cause immense harm to the concept of a free society and individual lives, yet they are pitied as the cause of their unhappiness.

The internet has increased our freedom of expression in an unbalanced way: greater ease of reaching people with our voices has come at the price of our freedom to talk without fear of retaliation. Similarly, the person you asked out on a date or the parents of the kids you teach may judge you based on the worst thing you've ever said, mistakenly believing it symbolizes who you are.

We must mentally and institutionally adjust to our new speaking abilities. We may take various techniques, but one will combine components from several. First, we might learn to self-censor and educate our children from a young age not to say anything that we wouldn't want the entire world to read at the length of a tweet. From a liberal standpoint, this is a terrifying scenario. Second, we must accept complete responsibility for other people's reactions to our views since free speech is inextricably related to cognition - speaking is thinking together.

Liberalism begins with respect for the individual's liberty to establish their beliefs about right and wrong. Second, we may shield ourselves against online censorship by minimizing our vulnerability to shame, which links our identity and well-being to how others see us. Guilt can be aroused by online hostility, but abandoning this process leaves us open to moral narcissism, as witnessed in Donald Trump. A Trumpian society is a gloomy idea, and just because you're not embarrassed by an unclear Twitter joke doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about losing your job.

Third, we could ask the government to protect us from the mob by limiting search engine results, installing firebreaks in social media networks, and holding social media companies legally accountable for slanders and threats from anonymous users. Such interventions are censorship in the name of free expression, but careful judgment and debate about the appropriate balance of rights are essential.

Fourth, we may adjust our moral disgust and outrage thresholds. Discovering something online that will enrage you to the core is easy. We may become less sensitive to the lesser quality of people's ideas being broadcast to the globe and allow individuals to be wrong. We could see that always becoming outraged over strangers on the other side of the planet isn't good for civilization. Instead, we may utilize our newfound verbal abilities to discuss it.

Art: midjourney.com

Posted Using LeoFinance Alpha