Most agree, however, that free speech has borders, beyond which there should be some restriction to prevent abuse, misinformation and other bad-faith efforts. Where these borders should be drawn has become a heated political debate, and the issue has become yet another battleground of the culture war. Free speech advocacy, however, is frequently used as a vehicle to push reactionary agendas, defending talking heads in the media against consequences for bigotry and misinformation. Alex Jones, the former host of far-right conspiracy website Infowars, routinely claimed his right to freedom of speech during a libel lawsuit over his accusation that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a staged ‘false flag’ operation and that both parents and victims were paid actors. The freedom of speech issue on the US far-right has bled across the channel to Britain, who attempt to use it as a wedge issue against Britain’s relatively strict restrictions on speech. Like most American culture war imports, it has largely failed to catch on, but it remains popular amongst the more online sections of the British far-right who are more receptive to MAGA-adjacent politics.
Free speech advocacy, however, is frequently used as a vehicle to push reactionary agendas, defending talking heads in the media against consequences for bigotry and misinformation.
The most recent and memorable example of this issue is Elon Musk’s buyout of Twitter (or X). Musk’s primary stated reason for buying the platform was Twitter’s perceived restriction of free speech, in particular the suspension of prominent right-wing public figures, including Donald Trump. After the buyout, the platform’s censorship rules were massively relaxed, and in a matter of weeks, millions of accounts appeared, of which a significant amount were bots, posting content which promoted overt racism, misogyny and homophobia. The concurrent release of generative AI such as ChatGPT exacerbated this, enabling bot accounts to make posts which more closely mimic real human writing. To add even more fuel to the fire, Musk changed Twitter’s verification system to a paid one, and pushed replies from verified accounts to the top of a post’s replies. Essentially, all you have to do to make your tweet claiming that the Holocaust never happened the first thing people see, is to give the world’s richest man 8 dollars a month. If it gets enough engagement, you can even get paid for it! Musk’s commitment to free speech also seems shaky, as shortly after he purchased the website he suspended an account which tracked his private jet’s movements, revealing the EV magnate’s frequent flying. Trump would go on to thank Musk for helping him win the swing state of Pennsylvania and briefly give him a role in government, whose policies would cause an estimated 300,000 excess deaths due to USAID cuts.
What this saga reveals, other than that Elon Musk is a reprobate, is the various issues with advocating for unrestricted free speech. Firstly, that it falsely assumes both those who would otherwise be censored and those who advocate for them are acting in good faith, when many are not. Secondly, it ignores how an unrestricted platform can be utilised by the rich and powerful as a form of social manipulation, spreading propaganda and misinformation. Thirdly, it provides a vehicle for those with extremely bigoted views to push them to the public. As a result, it is clear that absolute, unrestricted freedom of speech, is incompatible with a modern, democratic and equal society. If given a choice between the two, mine is certain. Speech has real world, material, human consequences. It can put dictators into power, spread hatred, and enable genocide. Some opinions, regardless of how politely they’re stated, should not be platformed.