How to Advocate Effectively for Free Speech

Source: Matthew Jungling/unsplash

The New York Times published an editorial opinion piece titled “America has a free speech problem” in March 2022. The piece cited a national poll commissioned by Times Opinion and Siena College which found that over 80 percent of U.S. adults believed it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

The same concern applies to higher education. Survey after survey has shown that college students increasingly self-censor, with a majority feeling that they have to be careful with what they can say. Yet, surveys also showed that a majority of students feel it is necessary to report a professor (74%) or fellow student (65%) to the university when they believe the person has said something offensive.

Isn't it perplexing that most people do nothing to defend their own right to free speech, and even participate in efforts to punish others for their speech?

Lacking participation in speech and expression in general

Many free-speech advocates believe lacking moral courage or having concerns about job security is the problem. This is true, to a certain extent, but it is not the whole picture. Another part of the problem is that most people don't have a vested interest in free speech, because for many, "free speech" seems to only belong to a select group of people, such as great orators with sharp opinions and the unwavering conviction to win debates on contested topics.

However, they are not representative of the population. To use "equality vs equity" as an example, many people probably could not tell the difference between the two terms, and do not have strong opinions, or even any opinion, on the topic. They may conditionally favor one over the other, believe in case-by-case evaluation, or agree with both concepts. I would call them "ambivalent." Even in an ideal "free speech" environment, these people still would not express many of their opinions, not because of suppression, but because they feel that their opinions are uninteresting. After all, what debate would invite a person with an ambivalent position? Which newspaper would publish the writings of people who are trying to understand a topic?

No direct benefits from defending free speech

Why would the majority of people devote any energy and resources to defend something that seems to benefit only a "select few"? We can argue that free speech benefits everyone, but in every market, there is never enough supply of public goods. We all want to be "free riders."

Thus, when encountering offensive language, or simply opinions that people disagree with, human emotional reactions tend to triumph over the desire to defend an ideal that doesn't seem to bring direct benefits. This shouldn't surprise us.

I would argue that engagement in defending free speech could only be improved when more "ambivalent persons" think the defenders of free speech represent their own opinion and speech style. Otherwise, the defenders are seen as defending their own rights to speak their own minds. Arguably they are defending the right for all people, but the vast majority of people probably would not see it that way.

Resentment toward free-speech defenders

In reality, how do "ambivalent persons" react? They do nothing beyond expressing frustration at self-censorship. The majority of citizens may be sick and tired of argument or debate, including those trying to defend everyone's rights. They are sometimes called the "exhausted majority." They may think free-speech defenders are extremists who cause polarization in society. They may value peace of mind over winning any debate, or supporting any side. For free-speech defenders, the exhausted majority is frustrating, or even infuriating: "I am defending your rights, yet you blame me?"

Free speech as debate cultivates intolerance

Our current practice of "free speech" is the debate model: Two camps, one winner. Ambivalent persons are sidelined. The speech style is usually confrontational, even combative. In our polarized society, it is common for people to think, "If you disagree with me, then you are my intellectual adversary."

Human beings do not like adversaries. If a person is able to not hate their adversaries, it is considered an admirable practice of tolerance. But we have a limited amount of tolerance to spend. One day, most of us will find ourselves fed up enough to shout ,"I don't want to listen to you anymore. Shut up and get out of here!"

Environment Essential Reads

Can We Stop Sabotaging Our Climate? Yes, With These Mindsets

How Nature Makes Us Human

Many people believe that the deterioration of free speech is an ideological problem. True, but it is also a human behavioral issue. Putting the ideological aspect aside, there are many behavioral strategies we can use to improve support for free speech.

How to effectively advocate for free speech

1. Emphasize common humanity to create room for tolerance. People must find a way to not see other people with different opinions as adversaries. Our reaction would be less aggressive if we saw a person with a different opinion as a person first and foremost as a fellow human being who has much more similarities with us than differences from us. Ultimately, seeing them as “one of us” makes us more tolerant. Common humanity dwarfs differences of opinion on particular issues, thus people are more likely to have a friendly conversation rather than an argument in which they feel compelled to have closure—or that they have to win.
2. Use conversation to convey ideas. A conversation could include all of the ideas expressed in a debate, but the reverse is not true. When people enter into debate mode, they seek to convince the other side. The focus is not on finding common ground but seeking logical flaws and weak arguments in the other side. Compassionate listening makes people tolerant. Combative arguments do not.
3. Create an inclusive environment to engage ambivalent persons. For free speech advocates, it is important to uplift the voices of ambivalent persons and encourage them to state their opinions. We may even go further, to center their voices. When people feel they are heard, respected, and treated fairly, they will take action to support the advocates who give them a platform.
4. Respect the people who think free speech can be sacrificed for honorable causes. It is important to make a distinction between advancing one's own ideas and defending free speech. A person who truly defends free speech welcomes different opinions on the topic. Advocates must respect people with different opinions, empathize with them, and acknowledge that they have honorable intentions, even if the two sides disagree on free speech’s role in making society better.