Defending free speech: a short thread. Many people come to free speech as a cause because their own views were shut down in some way. This means that their defence of free speech can often mean ‘I just want to be able to say the thing I want to say’. 1/7

That can make them poor advocates for the rights of everyone to speak freely because the cause they want to advocate often trumps their belief in free speech as a principle. 2/7

If someone is shut down for their views it is often because that issue arouses extremely strong emotions on either side. This can make that person a compelling speaker on the issue - and therefore good broadcast material or press copy. 3/7

So those people are often put up as the ‘voice of free speech’ (or censorship) when what they really want to do is advocate on the subject that is being censored - rather than discuss the principle. 4/7

And so we end up discussing the rights and wrongs of subject x rather than the principle of freedom of expression. Which means that when you hear those whose views you abhor endlessly lauded as the sole defenders of free speech you start hearing ‘free speech’ as a bad thing. 5/7

And that’s a bad thing. Because it’s really important that we defend the rights of everyone to speak freely, and that we are able to have open discussions both about the principle - but also the practice. 6/7

Where and how you draw the line on freedom of expression is difficult and complex and merits nuance and thought - not zingy one liners and setting up every discussion on free speech as two sides implacably opposed. 7/7

Another way of saying this...

TV ‘debate’ on Freedom of Speech
Broadcaster: Person with controversial view x, why should you be able to say this controversial thing?
Controversialist: Because I want to say this controversial thing. FREE SPEECH, OKAY??
Me: *Throws things at TV*