Justifying Freedom of Speech



On reading this title, you might wonder why such a basic freedom like free speech and -information needs to be justified explicitly. It is true that many people in western countries see such freedoms as natural, and that the international world-wide community, led by UN-based human rights efforts, shares and propagates that view (although far from all nations actually do). However, freedom of speech is more -- it is a moral necessity that is the very basis of any free society. Understanding on an objective basis why exactly the use of all true free speech is ethically justified, is essential for anyone to be able to seriously challenge pragmatic laws and policies, and to fully leverage the tool of free speech and the rights linked to it.

So, this is my motivation for laying out the basic, moral justification for freedom of speech and information, along with the convenience of having some undeniable pro-freedom arguments to stick into the faces of supporters of censorship to totalitarianism, who ignorantly justify themselves in denying people essential freedoms, including free speech. Since the dawn of the Internet age, that freedom is so dreaded by governments because it means having potential access to all possible perspectives on any topic, and the potential of reaching, communicating with and affecting people anywhere. In the worst countries in terms of freedom, from China, Cuba and North Korea to much of the Arab world, the illegitimacy of current regimes in so many points is obvious to most, at least to people living in more modern countries.

Why is censorship the first step toward totalitarianism (i.e. total slavery)? For the same reason why free speech is the necessary first step out of it.

The most effective weapon of the oppressed people is information. Being able to receive and spread information about ongoing oppression, dictatorial crimes and atrocities, about laws that violate rights, about how resistance can be organized, and about how people can preserve their freedoms or protect themselves, and so on are essential, not only to preserve basic rights, but also as a non-violent means of overthrowing a oppressive dictatorship or government. Without legitimacy of free speech as the last weapon or tool of the oppressed, the only recourse besides surrender, would be an underground movement resorting to physical violence as means of self-defense. Also consider that totalitarian societies are usually controlled by exploiting their dependency and apathy. The problem is the lack of independent thinking because of a lack of information, and the apathy is the resulting toleration of the ruling forces. These problems can be solved through free speech and closely related freedoms.

Free speech also inextricably includes the right to remain silent. Logically, anyone who is truly free to speak must also be free not to speak, which strongly links free speech to the freedom from self-incrimination.

The right to remain silent, and the related concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is even more than an important concept of justice. As a matter of fact, it is even a fundamental logical concept. A scene from the DefCon9 event springs into mind, when I attended a speech of Dr. Patrick Ball to a crowd of geeks and hackers about human rights activism. Some of his opening words were: "[...] we apply science and technology to human rights. We take a broad view of what science is. What people in this room do, we would count as science. So at least for this afternoon or for the next 30 minutes, think of yourself as a scientist, as someone who applies a systematic and rational approach to solving a problem, to figuring something out, to discovering something." That thought was exciting, and I think I liked it because the logic of scientific thinking has a lot to do with objective justice. Applied to the self-incrimination issue, concepts such as burden of proof and evidence (for the accuser, not for the accused) are not just essential for a free society, In fact, they are logic equivalents of the fundamentals of the scientific method and scientific inquiry, which means that many of the censorship and freedom issues in question today violate both honest legal and scientific principles.

Speech and information freedoms are the most fundamental rights of any individual, even more obvious than freedom of ones own body, property, choice. The erosion of the smallest freedoms often signifies a subtle crumbling down of more freedoms. Unfortunately, restriction of speech and information remains a global problem, to varying extends also manifested in the western world, such as in regulations related to the Internet. Hate speech is one of the worst things that free speech can be used for, however even that must not be censored using pragmatic laws. Why not? Only by protecting even the worst forms of free speech through categorically opposing all forms of censorship, the protection of free speech is ensured in all cases. Unfortunately, and more alarming, it is easy to observe limitations of basic freedoms in the (semi-) free world as well, especially when it comes to the right to remain silent. The new Internet-crime provisions, basically making law enforcement more convenient, force people to give up their right to remain silent, since they can force individuals under unsubstantiated suspicion to reveal encrypted information or face criminal charges without evidence. Ironically, the implementation of those laws started with the "RIP"-Bill in England, the country where the Magna Carta and the concept of civil rights was originally created, and then continued with the international cybercrime treaty and post-September-11th "anti-terrorist laws".

For all countries, both totalitarian and semi-free, can there be a self-justified, generally valid, and universal stance and approach against those limitations of freedom? Actually, there is, and it is called the non-aggression principle. It proclaims is that:

"No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation. Self-defense, the response to initiated force, is not only considered principled, but by many of the proponents of the non-aggression principle it is a necessity."

What makes the non-aggression principle so valuable is that it is -- unlike laws inspired by political agendas, political correctness or lobbying -- based on a single, non-arbitrary concept: taking the first action involving force is the only way to violate rights. Important to understand is that the definition of force includes non-violent compulsory force, threat of force (i.e. it includes arbitrary laws enforced through threats and ultimately through physical aggression if a subject fails to comply) and fraud (which is force because the victim of fraud does not have a free choice). That single principle can serve as a clear rule of distinction between legitimate and illegitimate laws; it can serve as objective criterion for moral justification or condemnation of politics. Those of the readers who have heard about this principle may have heard of it in connection with libertarianism, however, non-aggression is really a fundamental principle, that can accomplish much more than judging politics and freedom in the US.

People anywhere in the world, who are armed with this principle as a basic guideline for judgment, are able to make moral distinctions, objective distinctions, and most importantly, *independent* distinctions between what is right and wrong around them. This is important because it allows individuals objective judgment. It allows them to make *own* judgments of what is 'socially and morally acceptable', to a wide extend independently of anyone's religious convictions, local politics, bureaucratic policies, philosophies, nationality, ethnicity, and culture. Any concept which improves the independence of individuals and society from authorities when understood, and justifies self-defense and all peaceful and voluntary actions, especially free speech and information, is strongly related to the protection of all human- and individual rights.


Valid exceptions


It should not be ignored that there are a few valid limitations to speech, which I support and which are as well recognized by Hacktivismo. One of main points is that genuine free communication never involves force, and when anything does, it must not be protected. For example, nobody is saying that free expression includes inciting a riot or soliciting murder. The non-aggression mode of free speech protection may not apply to the few sites that seriously solicit active racism and violent, immoral actions. Provoking force can be seen as threat of force, and extreme propaganda calling for such may be seen as fraud. Hate speech in general, which doesn't necessarily call for force explicitly, is however a difficult topic. In any case, censorship, its futility, and the arbitrary laws that censorship brings with it, are the wrong choice. Censorship just doesn't solve the problem. In reality, each particular case would have to be reviewed in a court of law to review all complex details. Also, counting on self-exposure of hate groups through their own actions, advocating a healthy self-censorship of society, and in serious cases, non-Internet investigations to prove related crimes of hate group members, can be effective solutions.

Against child pornography and any other material that is intentionally created through rape, abuse or other aggression against individuals, the case is of course more obvious. Also, like other kinds of private information, active distribution of such material must be banned because it violates the right to privacy, in this case the privacy of the victims. The right to privacy can also be derived directly from non-aggression: violating any person's privacy by distributing his private information or secrets without his knowledge and consent, effectively forces that person to give up his privacy.


Thought crimes


And those are all the possible forms of illegitimate speech. Any other exceptions are bogus. Tasteless humor, hypothetical aggression, even hypothetical murder, "indecency", and all other thought "crimes" never involve aggression, are therefore victimless "crimes" and must not be censored.

This is an important observation because totalitarian censorship is the major problem but not the only one. Today's western politics of Internet regulations, creeping censorship and subversions of legal systems are *already* infringing on everyone's freedoms in many subtle ways; by making people waste their time dealing with such regulations, re-thinking about something politically incorrect they originally wanted to say, by making people engage in extensive fights for their civil liberties, even by delegating force and costly efforts to ISPs in order to monitor their customers and treat them as suspects, forcing people to use crypto, without a good chance of catching much of the people they're actually after, if any. The point here is that even if future censorships laws are still in the make, or that such laws can't really be fully enforced on the Internet, their mere existence and the looming threats ensnare people and impact their freedoms. Therefore I can only share the attitude of the Cypherpunks, that change should come rather through technology than counting on laws to achieve freedom.

Unfortunately, most of today's restrictive laws are pragmatic, and their common denominator is often a dangerous premise: The aim justifies the means. The problem of pragmatic laws based on that premise are the exact opposite of a principled approach such as non-aggression. When politicians are allowed to defend arbitrary aims like the "common good". There are aims such as upholding the social order of a country which rationalize public executions as means. The are aims such as protecting the public or culture which rationalize the means of banning and fighting non-aggressive, pro-freedom groups, such as Falun Gong in Red China. And in the western world, the pretty much unfeasible aim of preventing computer crime through legislation rationalizes the means of cybercrime-treaty style censorship of information enforcement of self-incrimination, and the mandatory supervision of the Internet in general. Pragmatic laws that rationalize any such means are the root of all political evil, independently of government, country or culture.


Conclusion


Free speech and free information are justified in themselves because they are peaceful and voluntary. Moreover, they are the most important self-defense tool available, working by delivering awareness and independent thinking.

The original definition of hacktivism, which the CULT OF THE DEAD COW and Hacktivismo prefers, along with me and many others, means the solving of freedom problems through the use of technology only for defensive purposes, such as providing people living in dictatorships with the technology and knowledge of to defend their freedoms, starting with free communication.

As the saying goes, "give a poor man a fish and he will have food for a day, teach him how to fish and he will have food for a lifetime". There are equivalents to engagement in unfree countries. Giving oppressed people the possibilities for free speech can be a highly effective strategy. It is a necessary basic requirement for establishing further basic freedoms, including individual independent thought, judgment and action.