Free to Speak, Free to Think

To say that freedom of speech is one of the major cornerstones of democracy is, by now, a well worn-out cliché, but the definition of the term itself remains elusive and controversial. Is this freedom absolute or should it have limits? Isn’t restricted freedom an oxymoron? Does freedom of speech grant us the right to say absolutely anything, even if it is hateful or incites violence? There are those who claim to embrace the ideals of Voltaire's famous quote: “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” They claim that any restriction on speech is censorship and that free speech is usually the first target of authoritarian regimes. Then, there are those who say that free speech in the age of the internet has become a threat to democracy and that speech, especially online, must be restricted and regulated. They claim that the rampant spread of misinformation causes chaos and confusion, leads to violence, and interferes with our democratic processes. 

Needless to say, the issue has been weaponized by both sides of the political aisle and both sides accuse each other daily of either disinformation or censorship to the point where the term “free speech” has lost all meaning. But, ironically, both sides ultimately agree that words have power, that the human mind is uniquely susceptible to language and that those who wield this power, wield the hearts and the minds of the crowds. So maybe it is not speech that we should focus the conversation on, but the hearts and the minds that have somehow become less tolerant, more fearful, much easier to manipulate, and less willing to listen. Maybe the conversation we should be having is not about how we speak, but how we think.

In preschool, I learned how to read my very first word: think. It was spelled out as an acronym on the wall and the teacher would point to each letter every morning and ask us to T.H.I.N.K. before we speak: Is it True? Is it Honest? Is it Important? Is it Necessary? Is it Kind? That is how I learned that speech is intentional. As I grew older, I realized that listening can be intentional as well, that these questions can and should be asked of all information that comes at us, and that this kind of intentional analysis of information is called critical thinking. If we think critically, we might remember that truth requires evidence. Honesty might seem redundant next to the truth, but we might remember that while truth is based on evidence and facts, honesty is about sincerity. Truth spoken without sincerity is aimed to deceive as much as a lie delivered sincerely. We might remember that importance is about the value of information. Irrelevant information is just noise that distracts from what is important. Necessity, on the other hand, is about need. Something might be true, honest and important, but it might not need to be said. So, necessity is also about timing. Finally, there is kindness to consider, because kindness is, first of all, about being considerate. Speech that is inconsiderate and unkind is hate speech; its only goal is to cause harm. Listening intentionally means considering the speaker’s motives, which means being less susceptible to manipulation.