Read Hanne’s The Herland Report.
In the raging war over free speech, a clear definition is often lost. Are we to follow the Marxist-progressive definition of free speech or the conservative, historic definition of freedom of expression? Let us look at the difference between the two views.
Since the early cradle of Western civilization, plurality of voices and opinions has characterized political debates. The aim of public discussions has been to find the best possible solutions to problems in society. Yet, free speech was never an amoral principle that allowed citizens to say whatever they wanted – without moral constraints. Words uttered had to be rational arguments in a debate, political speeches in a parliament, acknowledging that the concept of tolerance implies the need to respect others’ right to differ in opinion.
Christian philosophy believes that man is capable of both good and evil. This is why nation states need to be governed by laws that restrain man from doing harm to others. Christian moral principles therefore lay down the limits of modern free speech: You are not allowed to lie about opponents, slander their names with falsehoods, willfully twist their message so to demonize them, call opponents all types of foul names. You are to treat your opponent with respect, even in the harshest debates with raging differences, and uphold the Christian ideal of civility, politeness and justice.
The advent of Marxism changed all this. The radical, Marxist left practices a vastly different type of “free speech” than what was found in the original, Western tradition. In fact, they hated the classical freedom of expression that allowed diversity. Karl Marx (1818-1883) was very vocal about the need to destroy the traditional, Western capitalist system with personal freedoms, private property rights and its defining Christian values. This was to be done in bloody revolutions in which modern life would be destroyed completely. From the ashes would grow a utopian atheist, perfect society without God in which all would be happily ruled by the Marxist elite. The idea was to create fear among the population by clamping down on dissidents who opposed them, and remove all property rights.
When individuals are fired for celebrating a political assassination such as the public execution of the Christian leader Charlie Kirk, the historic definition of free speech is actually restored. Free speech was never the right to publicly support murder. The moral requirement of decency, civility and respect for others is upheld precisely by limiting bullying, defamation and demonization. For example, the group “Fired for Freedom,” that lists companies involved in firing, labels it “caving to white supremacy” to deny liberals the right to freely mock or celebrate the murder of Charlie Kirk. The Jimmy Kimmel debate reflects the same confusion about what free speech really is. Clearly, one should not be allowed to present lies under the disguise of comedy. This is how twisted the debate gets if the understanding of “free speech” is not properly defined. The current Marxist version of “free speech,” without the traditional, religious moral constraints was never a classic Western value.
The principle of modern free speech was initially introduced in the 1600s to the British House of Commons to ensure that speakers were not interrupted in the middle of a political argument, according to the required principles of Christian good manners, politeness and civility.
It was as late as in 1949, that freedom of expression was stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a human right. Article 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression … to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The immense intellectual flaw of this U.N. declaration is its influence by Marxist ideology; it simply does not define the ethical limits of free expression. The U.N. charter eloquently speaks of rights, but remarkably little of the historic requirements of personal duties and obligations.
“Communism abolishes all religion and all morality,” Marx writes. The Marxist definition of “free speech” is one with no moral standard, allowing deceitful, lying, cheating, manipulative or attributing statements to political opponents that one knows is a falsehood. Vladimir I. Lenin (1870-1924), the founder of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) describes it this way: “We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth … we must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion and scorn towards those who disagree with us.” This is the recipe for injustice and totalitarian control, not free speech.