Some thoughts on free speech
On balancing a commitment to free expression with the values of civility, inclusivity, and respect for all.
Few subjects are as fundamental to our society as our engagement with speech. It concerns nothing less than the expression of the ideas that are at the heart of all we do. In recent weeks, there has been much conversation about, well, conversation—about the exchange of ideas in the public debate. Emotionally charged subjects like the Israel-Hamas war and the daily drama of politics in the US and globally have raised perennial questions about how we should conduct ourselves in the central debates of the moment. We are in a time when we continually face questions like: how can we have conversations that are inclusive and respectful, while honoring our commitment to free speech? What limits, if any, should we place on expression? How can we speak in ways that are true to all our values, not just some?
The phrase “freedom of speech” is so familiar, so core to all we do, that its very familiarity can make it seem vague, hard to define. It is worthwhile, then, to continually clarify what we mean by it, and why a commitment to free speech should remain core to all we do in the idea space. We are committed to free speech because it is through a free exchange of ideas that we create space for a plurality of perspectives, towards elevating the ideas that support a healthier world. The work of creating a healthier world is, in large part, the work of acting on ideas and data that emerge from a context of free inquiry and open debate.
It is important, then, to create space for the expression of a plurality of ideas that is, as much as possible, free from undue limits. At the same time, it is necessary to carefully define what those limits are, to maintain the integrity of our conversations. Speech and thought are not truly free if they always make us comfortable by reinforcing what we already believe. We should, as a rule, pursue the kind of engagement that is shaped by a range of perspectives, towards the goal of better understanding issues of consequence for health.
When we make exceptions to this, we should make them in ways that fundamentally prove the rule—a rule that says we should value free speech. We define what is unacceptable to draw a distinction between what is truly beyond the pale of respectful discourse and what is merely heterodox thinking, the latter being something we should encourage, indeed something we cannot do without. For this reason, if we are to place limits on speech, we have a particular responsibility to err on the side of doing so with great care, putting forward well-defined criteria for taking such steps.
First, speech must be open to rejoinders by other speech. We need not provide a platform for speech which is not open to reasoned reply. This includes speech which embraces name-calling, speech which seeks to shout down attempts at rebuttal, and speech which refuses to acknowledge alternate perspectives. Freedom of speech also means the freedom to hear the ideas and perspectives of others. It is important to note that speech and expression need not be threatening, as defined below, to nevertheless disrupt or try to shut down the open expression of ideas. Such disruption should be unacceptable, even if we have an obligation to tolerate inconvenience that may arise from creating space for ample expression of feelings and diverse perspectives. Speech, however, can only shape a healthier world when it is part of a dialogue in which we maintain open lines of communication, sharing ideas in the spirit of conversation and civility, with all able to participate. When speech is closed off to dialogue it is no longer a constructive or welcome influence.
Second, there should be no home for speech which implicitly or explicitly endorses violence or poses threats to others. The purpose of free speech is to provide a space for at times spirited disagreement without the threat of violence. We sometimes take this for granted, but it is a relatively recent advance in human history, a history which is in large part a catalogue of violent conflicts between groups that began where, as Hannah Arendt wrote, speech ended. It has taken us a long time to do better but we have done better and maintaining this progress means recognizing that violence is inimical to a context of free speech and open debate and should not be tolerated anywhere. It is also worth noting that the notion of safety has, at times, been over-used to insulate us from speech we do not like. Speech that discomfits us is precisely the type of speech that we should not only tolerate, but encourage, and it is on us to have the wisdom to recognize when speech is truly dangerous other than being merely provocative.
Third, we should recognize that the pursuit of a healthier world is built on a foundation of data and intellectual honesty. It is speech that ascribes to these principles that we should prioritize, and we are under no obligation to give a platform to speech that traffics in provable falsehoods advanced dishonestly as objective truth. When speech is dissociated from the foundations for fact and data, it has nothing to offer the public debate, muddying the waters and preventing the deeper understanding that advances progress. We have a responsibility to elevate speech which sheds light rather than heat by being grounded in fact and reason. In noting this point, one also needs to note that we should have suitable humility in our determination of when speech may not be factual. It is far too easy to cry “misinformation” to restrict alternative interpretations of facts that we may not like. It is on us to be capacious in our tolerance for different takes on the world, while also recognizing our real responsibility to curate speech that aligns with reality. The earth is, after all, round, and I do not see that we need to create that much space for flat-earth discussions.
Fourth, it is reasonable for us to expect that speech should honor the principles of inclusion that underpin much of what we do. And, conversely, we have an obligation to call out speech that denies the basic dignity, identity, and human rights of others. This includes speech which calls for violations of fundamental rights such as the rights to autonomy, security, and equal protection before the law. I realize that this is perhaps the category of speech which calls for the most nuance in evaluating, as it has practical implications for how we advance a healthier world by engaging with the public debate. There are many voices within the mainstream of the public discourse calling for political policies that we might argue infringe on basic dignity and human rights. Preventing these calls from becoming settled policy means engaging with them in the idea space, to rebut them with what is arguably the best antidote to bad ideas: better ideas founded on better data. But we do so while being mindful that the speech engaged in these discussions includes all of us, without dismissing the personhood of any of us. To deny the identity of individuals or groups—to suggest they should not exist—is, at a fundamental level, to reject the premises that allow constructive dialogue to take place, creating the risk of real harm. For this reason, we are under no obligation to support such speech.
These principles are offered as guidelines for how we should define and engage with speech we find objectionable. While we are clear in our values, there are few bright lines when it comes to speech. All cases require judgement, a sensitivity to context and intention. I am articulating these principles here to create guideposts for those moments when we must use our judgment about speech, balancing our commitment to free expression with our commitment to supporting a respectful, inclusive world.
A second, related issue on this matter, is how we should engage with individuals who espouse ideas with which we disagree, whose speech runs counter to the four principles above. While I am suggesting here that we may choose—judiciously, wisely—to rebut speech that is objectionable, the perhaps harder question remains: how do we interact with the speaker? After all, speech does not exist in a vacuum; it is an expression of human thoughts, and those humans may walk among us. When we encounter such people, there is a perhaps understandable feeling that we should not associate with them at all, that they have no place anywhere near us. This feeling is particularly understandable in the present moment, when we have seen many disagreeable ideas gain power in the political space, shaping policy in directions which undermine health. Why, we may well ask, should we tolerate people who argue in favor of such ideas? I offer three thoughts in this regard.
First, the presence of someone whose ideas differ, perhaps radically, from our own provides a perspective which may cause us to take a critical look at our own views, to revisit the empirical basis of what we believe to be true. It is easy to feel like our deepest convictions are self-evidently correct, that they need no such reevaluation. This is particularly the case when everyone with whom we associate seems to share these convictions. But the person with objectionable views likely feels equally convinced of the truth of their views. There is value to the presence of such a person to help us to see the individual behind such views, to recognize how real human beings—as opposed to easily dismissed political abstractions—can think in ways we do not. Engaging with such individuals can motivate the reflections that make us better able to defend our views, to recognize and address any flaws in our arguments, and to resist the temptation to demonize and “other” those with whom we disagree, supporting a healthier public discourse and ultimately a healthier world.
Second, there is always something to learn from someone who is willing to publicly contradict the prevailing notion within their own community. We live in a time of intense polarization, in which we often find ourselves divided into one of two political camps. Within each of these camps, it is common to hear the expression of views which would be regarded as objectionable by those in the other camp. What is less common is to hear within one camp ideas which go against the grain of those within that community. There can be a high social cost to saying something we know our colleagues, friends, and even family might disagree with. Yet, as thinking people, few of us have not had such thoughts from time to time. How do we travel the distance from thought to expression when doing so carries undeniable risks? In this, we might learn from having persons in our midst expressing views with which we disagree—even as we vigorously and robustly object to those views. While some individuals advance objectionable views out of obliviousness, heedless of the social context in which they speak, others speak well aware of the risk they run. In speaking anyways, they display what might fairly be called courage, showing a virtue in action they may not show in thought, a virtue that is well worth emulating.
Third, when it is possible for an individual to express objectionable views and still remain part of a community of ideas, it becomes easier for everyone else to speak their mind, secure in the knowledge that, if we tolerate the objectionable—and even engage with it from a position of intellectual curiosity and willingness to debate—there is certainly space for the merely heterodox—for the dissent and respectful disagreement that keep an ecosystem of ideas healthy. It is important to remember that, while we may hold the majority opinion today, tomorrow we may find ourselves in the minority, holding views we feel are right but that our community considers to be wrong. We should therefore treat dissenters the way we would wish to be treated when it comes our time to think differently. This is particularly important when the stakes are nothing less than the health of populations and we cannot afford the pitfalls of groupthink or the silencing of voices that could stop us from making mistakes that place health at risk.
The conversation about speech is a journey, with no destination we will reach any time soon. It reflects, shapes, and is shaped by the conversation in politics and in the broader culture. Such evolution makes it necessary to revisit, re-examine, our values on a regular basis and to update, constantly, our engagement with what is most fundamental to our thinking. This includes balancing our values of free speech with our concern for civility, inclusivity, and respect. Thank you to everyone who engages with these essays for being part of the conversations that help strike this balance.
A version of this piece appeared as a Dean’s Note to the Boston University School of Public Health community.
__ __ __
Also this week.
I had the pleasure of joining the America Dissected Podcast for a discussion about Within Reason with Abdul El-Sayed.
New in JAMA Forum, thoughts on the values that may serve as guidelines for creating health policy during divided times.