You Say You Support Freedom of Speech. But Do You Really?

Answer the KEY QUESTION I pose below and we'll see.

KEY QUESTION: Do you think it is ever right to violently prevent a nonviolent unarmed person from making a purely factual statement (not advocating anything) that is absolutely true, when making that statement will have no imminent and likely harmful effect?

Well? Yes, or No?

Isn’t a “No” answer required if you support freedom of speech? Sure, the “freedom of speech” principle acknowledges universally accepted exceptions, such as the famous “falsely shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.” But does the premise in the KEY QUESTION posed above fall into any of those exceptional categories? I don’t think so. Do you?

Under U.S. First Amendment law, the principle is:

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.^[4], and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.^[4]

If even “advocacy of force or criminal activity” is permitted under freedom of speech as long as it is not “likely to incite” “imminent lawless action,” then surely making a true factual statement without advocating anything when doing so does not incite imminent action of any kind must be allowed under the freedom of speech principle, right?

So once again, just to make sure now, how do you answer the KEY QUESTION posed above? Yes, or No?

If you answer “Yes,” then you are rejecting the freedom of speech principle. But not to worry, you probably answered “No,” right? OK, I will assume you answered “No” and now wait to hear if you stick to that “No” answer when I give you an actual real-life example in which people you probably respect gave a “Yes” answer to the KEY QUESTION. And then we’ll see if you agree or disagree with how these people answered it.

Here’s the real life example.

During World War II the German government sent unarmed planes (with unarmed pilots) over England. The pilot’s job was to send absolutely truthful radio reports (i.e. statements) describing what he saw on the ground. Germany, of course, used those reports to make decisions about subsequent—not imminent!—air attacks on England.

The Allied leaders, and no doubt virtually all the ordinary people living in the Allied nations, agreed that the proper thing to do was to shoot down these unarmed German pilots, in other words to violently prevent them from making their absolutely true statements. The Allied leaders thus all agreed that the answer to the KEY QUESTION was ‘Yes.”

Now it’s your turn. Do you agree with the Allied leaders and virtually all of the people in the Allied nations that the answer to the KEY QUESTION is not “No” (as I’m guessing you initially thought) but rather “Yes”?

Come on now. Be honest. Had you lived during World War II and been among the Allied leaders having to answer the KEY QUESTION in regards to the German pilots, would you have argued for your “No” answer, that freedom of speech prohibits violently preventing the German pilots from making their true statements?

I don’t think you would. I think now you may agree with me that the answer to the KEY QUESTION is “Yes,” which means that there is something wrong with the freedom of speech principle.

“But wait!” you say. My example is an exceptional context: WAR.

Now YOU wait! War is NOT an exceptional context. The CLASS war is going on all around us all the time. The ONLY reason you answered “No” to the KEY QUESTION initially is because you were not thinking about the fact that you and I and everybody else is living in the midst of the CLASS war, a war waged by the haves against the have-nots, by the haves who treat the have-nots like dirt so routinely and openly (as I discuss in some detail here) that, like the fish that doesn’t see the water, you fail to see the war. When the have-nots resist being treated like dirt, as they do in zillions of ways—some very visible and others not—they are waging the class war against their oppressor. Just as the leaders of the Allies understood, and I hope you now understand, the answer during war to the KEY QUESTION is a resounding “Yes.”

Let me state the general principle that very sensibly guided the Allied leaders who shot down the German pilot. The principle was:

“Any speech or other deed that helps the enemy to defeat us is morally wrong and we should prevent it, violently if necessary, unless doing so would for some reason harm our own side too greatly.”

Simple! It’s not rocket science.

Nor is it rocket science for the have-nots to apply this sensible and morally just principle to the CLASS war, the war of the oppressed against the oppressor.

If you are now curious to read further about this, and about how to apply the sensible principle about speech, then I invite you to read my post titled, “‘The Right to Free Speech’ Is a Bogus Concept.”

Read here how YOU can help build the egalitarian revolutionary movement that will support speech that is not used to oppress people and oppose speech that is used to oppress people.