More Speech, Not Less: Defending Free Speech in the Age of Outrage
In a world quick to silence, here’s why we need to champion every voice. The path to a more just humanist society starts with protecting the right to speak freely.
In a world where ideas and beliefs clash with increasing intensity, the right to free speech stands as a beacon of both personal and collective liberty. It is a right that transcends borders, ideologies, and cultural divides, serving as a cornerstone for any society that values democracy and human dignity.
Free speech is not just a legal entitlement; it is the lifeblood of a vibrant, pluralistic society where diverse voices can be heard and where truth, justice, and progress can flourish.
This essay draws inspiration from Rowan Atkinson's impassioned defence of free expression, delivered in a speech that resonates far beyond the context of its original audience. Atkinson, commonly known for his role as Mr. Bean, reminds us that the right to speak freely is not merely an abstract principle but a practical necessity for human flourishing.
For those of us who are part of a global humanist renaissance movement, this right holds even greater significance. Humanism, at its core, is about the pursuit of knowledge, the exercise of reason, and the commitment to ethical living. None of these can thrive in an environment where speech is stifled or censored.
Free speech, therefore, is not just a fundamental right—it is a foundational pillar of humanist activism. It is the very mechanism by which we challenge dogma, confront injustice, and promote understanding in an increasingly polarized world. This essay will explore the current challenges to free speech, the rising tide of what Atkinson terms "The New Intolerance," and the urgent need for humanists to champion the cause of free expression as a vital component of our shared humanity.
Rowan Atkinson’s Free Speech Masterclass
Rowan Atkinson, known for his comedic genius, is also a powerful advocate for one of the most critical freedoms we possess—free speech. His speech is a reminder that the right to express our thoughts and ideas isn’t just a privilege for the powerful, but a necessity for everyone, particularly the vulnerable and marginalized.
In an era where the lines between offence and censorship are increasingly blurred, Atkinson’s words cut through the noise with clarity and conviction. He warns us of the dangers of “The New Intolerance,” where well-intentioned efforts to protect can quickly devolve into mechanisms of control. His examples—both real and satirical—serve as stark reminders of how easily society can slip into a state where freedom is sacrificed on the altar of security.
But Atkinson doesn’t just critique; he offers a solution that aligns perfectly with humanist values: more speech, not less. He argues that by allowing ideas, even those we find uncomfortable, to be aired freely, we strengthen society’s ability to resist hate and ignorance. It’s a call to build resilience not through repression but through engagement and dialogue.
In watching Atkinson, we’re reminded that the defence of free speech is not just the concern of politicians or activists. It’s a collective responsibility, one that requires us all to be vigilant and courageous in the face of growing pressures to conform. His message is clear: if we want a society that is truly free and just, we must champion the right to speak freely—no matter how challenging that may be.
Let’s take a moment to appreciate the profound simplicity of Atkinson’s message: free speech is the lifeblood of progress. Without it, we lose the ability to question, to innovate, and ultimately, to be truly human.
Free Speech as a Core Humanist Value
Humanism is a philosophy that places human beings at the center of ethical consideration, celebrating the individual’s capacity for reason, empathy, and critical thinking. It rejects the notion that authority, tradition, or dogma should dictate the limits of our thoughts and expressions. In this context, free speech is not merely an accessory to humanist thought; it is integral to its very foundation.
The right to free expression allows for the open exchange of ideas, which is essential for the pursuit of knowledge and the advancement of society. In a world governed by reason, where every claim and belief can be scrutinized, debated, and either upheld or discarded based on its merit, free speech is the bedrock upon which all other humanist ideals stand. Without it, the potential for growth, understanding, and collective improvement is severely diminished.
Throughout history, the most significant strides in human progress have been accompanied by an expansion of the right to speak freely. The Enlightenment, the abolition of slavery, the fight for civil rights, and the ongoing struggle for gender equality—all these movements have been fueled by the voices of those who dared to challenge the status quo. They questioned widely accepted truths, pushed back against oppressive systems, and demanded that society reconsider its deepest assumptions. In each case, the expansion of free speech played a crucial role in enabling the open discourse necessary for these movements to gain momentum and achieve lasting change.
For humanists, defending free speech is not an optional battle; it is a moral imperative. The ability to express one’s thoughts and ideas without fear of retribution is a fundamental human right that underpins all other rights and freedoms. It is through the fearless exchange of ideas that we uncover truth, dispel ignorance, and build a world that is more just, compassionate, and enlightened. Restricting free speech undermines the very principles that make humanism a force for positive change.
However, it is important to recognize that the protection of free speech must be balanced with the responsibility to address its potential negative impacts. While misinformation and harmful rhetoric can incite violence, promote discrimination, and undermine the credibility of the media, these challenges do not justify the suppression of speech. Instead, they emphasize the need to foster an environment where education, critical thinking, and the availability of diverse information sources are prioritized. The best way to counter harmful speech is not through censorship but through open debate and the robust exchange of ideas, ensuring that truth and reason prevail in a free and open society.
Moreover, the suppression of free speech by governments or other authorities poses a significant risk to democracy and human rights. When governments control the speech of their citizens, they often do so under the guise of protecting the public or upholding certain values. Yet, history has shown that such control often leads to the abuse of power, with those in authority using their control over speech to maintain their grip on power and silence opposition. This not only stifles dissent but can also lead to a cycle of repression that ultimately threatens the very foundations of democracy.
To protect against this risk, it is essential to build systems of governance that are as neutral as possible, ensuring that free speech and the independence of the media are safeguarded. These systems must be resilient to changes in power and designed to prevent any single group or ideology from dominating public discourse. For humanists, this means advocating for legal frameworks that protect the right to free expression while also ensuring that all voices, particularly those that challenge the status quo, can be heard.
In today’s world, where new challenges to free expression are emerging from both state actors and societal pressures, it is crucial that we, as humanists, remain vigilant. We must advocate not just for the right to speak, but for the right to be heard, even when our words are uncomfortable, controversial, or unpopular. In doing so, we honor the true spirit of humanism and ensure that it remains a powerful catalyst for progress and human dignity in the years to come.
The importance of free speech extends beyond the right to speak one’s mind; it is about the ability to engage in meaningful dialogue, challenge assumptions, and hold those in power accountable. It is about creating a society where ideas can flourish, where disagreements can be aired with respect and reason, and where the pursuit of truth is placed above all else. In this way, free speech is not just a human right; it is the lifeblood of a thriving, just, and enlightened society.
As humanists, we must be the torchbearers of free speech in a world that increasingly seeks to snuff it out. We must create spaces where ideas can be exchanged freely, where diverse voices can be heard, and where the principles of reason, empathy, and critical thinking are upheld. By doing so, we not only protect the right to free expression but also ensure that the ideals of humanism continue to guide us toward a more just and compassionate world.
A Warning from Across the Pond – The Globalization of Censorship
The image circulating today speaks volumes about the state of global free speech. When a UK police commissioner asserts that they can extradite and jail Americans over social media posts protected by the First Amendment, it’s not just a bureaucratic overreach—it’s a direct assault on the very principles of free expression. This isn't just about borders or laws; it’s about a creeping authoritarianism that seeks to impose its will beyond its jurisdiction.
The Libertarian Party’s meme is a powerful response, encapsulating the defiance that founded America. The image of George Washington and his compatriots standing their ground against British oppression, body slamming the oppressor, resonates deeply. It’s a symbolic reminder that the struggle for freedom is ongoing and that today’s battlefields are not just in the courts or on the streets, but online, where speech and expression are the new frontiers.
But the fight against this “globalizing censorship” is not just about resisting foreign overreach. It’s about standing up for the very freedoms that define us, reminding those in power that our voices cannot be silenced by threats, and that the spirit of liberty, once kindled, can never be extinguished.
In the age of outrage and cancel culture, where words are too often weaponized, this meme is a rallying cry for free thinkers everywhere. It’s a call to defend not just your freedoms but the universal right to speak one’s mind without fear of retribution—whether that threat comes from across the street or across the ocean.
Let this image serve as a reminder that the fight for freedom of speech is far from over, and that every generation must be ready to defend it, both at home and abroad. Today, we face a new kind of tyranny—one that knows no borders. But just like the revolutionaries of old, we must stand firm and refuse to be silenced.
The Problem with Overreach in Free Speech Laws
In theory, laws governing speech are often crafted with the noble intention of protecting people and society from harm. However, in practice, these laws can sometimes overreach, stifling the very freedom they are meant to safeguard. Rowan Atkinson’s speech offers vivid examples of such overreach, where well-meaning regulations have led to absurd and unjust outcomes, serving as cautionary tales for those who value free expression.
Consider the case of the man in Oxford who was arrested for calling a police horse “gay” or the teenager who was detained for labelling the Church of Scientology a cult. These incidents, which Atkinson aptly describes, highlight the dangers of laws that criminalize speech based on subjective interpretations of insult or offence. The absurdity of these arrests lies not just in the triviality of the supposed offences but in the broader implications they hold for society. When the law becomes a tool for punishing harmless or satirical speech, it ceases to serve the public good and instead becomes a mechanism of control.
These examples, though extreme, are not isolated. They are indicative of a broader trend where the boundaries of what is considered unacceptable speech are constantly shifting, often in response to the sensitivities of particular groups or individuals. This creates a perilous situation where the fear of offending others leads to a culture of self-censorship, where people refrain from expressing their views—not because they believe they are wrong, but because they fear legal or social repercussions.
This "chilling effect" is deeply antithetical to humanist principles. Humanism thrives on the open exchange of ideas and the ability to question, challenge, and debate without fear of retribution. When speech is policed to the extent that people are afraid to voice dissenting opinions, society as a whole suffers. Innovation, progress, and social change all rely on the ability to speak freely and critically. A society where people are afraid to speak out is one that stagnates, unable to adapt or evolve.
Moreover, the chilling effect extends beyond individual self-censorship. It impacts the broader public discourse, narrowing the range of acceptable debate and limiting the diversity of viewpoints that can be heard. This, in turn, undermines the democratic process, as the marketplace of ideas becomes dominated by the safest, least controversial opinions. The richness of human thought and the potential for societal improvement are sacrificed on the altar of perceived safety.
Contemporary Examples of Overreach in Free Speech Laws
To fully grasp the dangers of overreach in free speech laws, we can examine some contemporary examples from around the world. The issue of overreach in free speech laws is not confined to theoretical discussions or historical contexts; it is an ongoing global struggle with tangible societal implications.
Riots Labelled as “Far-Right” and Social Media Regulation: In the aftermath of recent riots across the UK, political leaders have increasingly advocated for stricter social media regulations, attributing the unrest to online incitement—an approach that echoes the chilling control described in George Orwell's 1984. The forthcoming UK's Online Safety Act, slated for enforcement in 2025, seeks to mitigate the spread of harmful opinions online. While the intent behind this legislation may be to protect public safety, critics warn that it risks enabling expansive censorship, suppressing free expression under the broad and subjective criteria of what constitutes "harmful opinions." The danger lies in the potential for these regulations to be misused, silencing dissenting voices or unpopular opinions under the guise of maintaining public order. A balanced approach is required—one that safeguards both public safety and the fundamental right to free speech, ensuring that open discourse remains a cornerstone of a healthy, pluralistic society.
Anti-Immigration Protests in Southern England: The recent anti-immigration protests in Southern England have sparked significant unrest, fueled by what many perceive as undemocratic demographic changes imposed by the government and international entities like the World Economic Forum. These protests, driven by concerns over these top-down impositions, have been further exacerbated by the spread of misinformation on social media platforms, amplifying fears and tensions. While it is essential to address the potential for online discourse to contribute to real-world violence, the calls for more stringent regulation of digital speech must be balanced against the need to protect free speech. Overregulation risks stifling legitimate discourse and dissent, which are vital components of a functioning democracy. The challenge lies in curbing the spread of harmful misinformation without infringing on the fundamental freedoms of expression, ensuring that public debate remains robust and inclusive.
Violent Clashes Across the UK: The recent wave of violent clashes across the UK has been broadly labeled as actions by far-right groups—a categorization that oversimplifies the complex motivations behind the protests. The demonstrators include a diverse cross-section of British society, comprising ordinary citizens alongside counter-protesters, many of whom do not align with far-right ideologies. By painting all participants with the same brush, the narrative unjustly delegitimizes their grievances and stifles meaningful dialogue. The government's response, marked by warnings of severe repercussions, highlights the delicate balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding free speech. While preventing violence is paramount, it is equally important to engage with and understand the underlying causes of these protests. Suppressing dissent through heavy-handed measures risks further alienating segments of the population, potentially leading to greater unrest. A nuanced approach is necessary—one that distinguishes between violent actions and peaceful dissent, and ensures that diverse voices are heard, even when they express uncomfortable or controversial viewpoints.
Protest Bans in France and Germany: In response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, France and Germany have implemented sweeping bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, citing concerns over hate speech and the need to maintain public order. While these measures may be intended to prevent violence and ensure social harmony, they raise significant concerns about the infringement of fundamental democratic rights, particularly the right to protest and freedom of expression. By imposing broad restrictions on specific viewpoints, these bans risk stifling legitimate political discourse and suppressing the voices of those advocating for marginalized communities. In a democratic society, the right to protest is a vital mechanism for holding those in power accountable and for bringing attention to issues of public concern. The challenge lies in balancing the need for public safety with the protection of free speech, ensuring that all voices, particularly those advocating for justice and equality, can be heard.
Denmark's Blasphemy Laws: Denmark's recent decision to reintroduce a blasphemy law, dormant since 1946, marks a significant regression for free expression in a democratic society. While the stated intention is to protect religious sentiments and maintain social harmony, such laws inherently conflict with the principles of free speech and open discourse. Blasphemy laws often serve as tools to suppress dissenting views and curtail critical discussion about religious beliefs, stifling intellectual freedom in the process. In a pluralistic society, it is essential to allow for the questioning and critique of all ideas, including religious ones. By criminalizing the improper treatment of religious texts, Denmark risks creating a climate of fear where legal repercussions inhibit open dialogue. This move undermines the democratic values of free thought and expression, essential for a healthy, progressive society. Instead of punitive measures, Denmark should promote tolerance and understanding through education and dialogue, ensuring that freedom of expression is upheld while fostering mutual respect among its increasingly diverse population.
Spain's Anti-Terrorism Speech Laws: Spain's stringent measures against speech related to terrorism, exemplified by the imprisonment of Catalan rapper Pablo Hasel for his lyrics and tweets, highlight the dangers of overreach in the name of national security. While the intent behind these laws is to safeguard public safety and prevent incitement to violence, they often cross the line into stifling legitimate expression. Hasel's case underscores how these laws can be exploited to target individuals for their political views rather than any genuine threat they pose. The broad and ambiguous definition of "terrorism-related speech" enables authorities to criminalize dissent and criticism under the guise of maintaining public order, setting a dangerous precedent where artistic and political expression can be curtailed in the name of security. In a democratic society, it is vital to strike a balance that protects both public safety and the fundamental right to free expression. Overly harsh anti-terrorism laws risk creating a climate of fear and self-censorship, where individuals are hesitant to voice their opinions, stifling the open debate and critical discourse that are essential for a thriving democracy.
COVID-19 and Free Speech
The global COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted the precarious balance between public safety and free speech:
Government Crackdowns: The COVID-19 pandemic saw at least 83 governments worldwide implement sweeping restrictions on free speech and peaceful assembly, often under the pretext of protecting public health. These measures disproportionately targeted journalists, activists, and opposition groups, detaining critics, breaking up protests, and shutting down media outlets. Ostensibly, these actions were taken to curb the spread of misinformation and protect public health, but they frequently served as tools to stifle dissent and limit the public's access to diverse viewpoints. By using the pandemic as a justification for these restrictions, governments effectively silenced critical voices when transparent, open discourse was most needed. This not only undermined democratic principles but also eroded public trust in institutions, as citizens became increasingly skeptical of the true motivations behind these restrictions. The impact on journalists and activists was particularly severe, as their ability to report on government actions and hold authorities accountable was compromised, leading to a chilling effect on free speech and a significant setback for human rights globally.
Social Media Misinformation: In response to the spread of COVID-19 misinformation, platforms like Facebook implemented stringent content moderation policies, sparking debates about balancing the fight against false claims with protecting free speech. While the intention behind these policies was to prevent the spread of harmful misinformation, they also had significant unintended consequences. By silencing both public and domain expert critics, these platforms prevented the dissemination of valid scientific and experiential data that could have contributed to a more nuanced understanding of the pandemic. This blanket censorship not only stifled legitimate discourse but also eroded public trust in both the platforms and the institutions they aimed to protect. When diverse viewpoints are suppressed, the public is deprived of the opportunity to critically evaluate all available information, leading to a less informed and more polarized society. To effectively combat misinformation, it is essential to foster open dialogue and encourage critical thinking, rather than resorting to heavy-handed censorship that ultimately undermines the principles of free expression and informed public discourse. Initiatives like X's Community Notes offer a model for addressing harmful misinformation through crowdsourced fact-checking rather than direct censorship.
Twitter Files and Elon Musk's Acquisition and Rebranding of Twitter
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, rebranding it as "X," and the subsequent release of the "Twitter Files" have reignited critical discussions about content moderation and free speech:
The Twitter Files: The release of the Twitter Files by Elon Musk unveiled a series of internal documents and communications that revealed the intricate decision-making processes behind content moderation on the platform. These files exposed how previous management frequently collaborated with various governments, raising significant concerns about external influence over free speech on the platform. The revelations suggested that content moderation decisions were often swayed by political and social pressures, resulting in accusations of bias and censorship. Critics argue that this collusion compromised the platform's commitment to free expression, as it allowed governments to shape the narrative and suppress dissenting voices. By bringing these practices to light, the Twitter Files underscored the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability in how social media platforms regulate speech, highlighting the delicate balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding the fundamental right to free expression.
Rebranding to 'X': Musk's rebranding of Twitter to "X" and the reinstatement of previously banned accounts have sparked significant controversy, with some critics alleging a rise in hate speech on the platform. In reality, the previously left-leaning platform now includes speech from previously throttled political views, which some consider a rise in hate speech. Musk advocates for a more open platform, emphasizing the importance of free expression and the marketplace of ideas in what he calls “The Global Town Hall.” However, there remains a need for clear guidelines to prevent genuinely harmful content while upholding free speech rights. This ongoing debate highlights the tension between fostering open dialogue and curbing hate speech, shaping the future of digital communication and social media's role in society.
These cases illustrate how well-intentioned regulations can lead to unintended consequences, stifling free expression and undermining the principles they aim to protect. They underscore the risks of overreach in speech laws, which can lead to censorship and a chilling effect on public discourse. For those who value free speech, these examples serve as a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance and advocacy in defending this fundamental right.
For the global humanist movement, this trend of overreach in free speech laws is a call to action. We must resist the encroachment of laws that, under the guise of protecting people from harm, impose undue restrictions on our ability to think, speak, and engage freely with the world around us. Humanists must advocate for legal frameworks that balance the protection of people from genuine harm with the preservation of robust, uninhibited public discourse. Only by doing so can we ensure that the principles of humanism—reason, compassion, and the pursuit of truth—continue to guide us toward a more enlightened and just society.
The Case for More Speech
In an era where the clamour for protection from offensive or uncomfortable ideas grows louder, it is more crucial than ever to recognize the profound importance of fostering a culture of open dialogue. Rowan Atkinson, in his speech, compellingly argues that the best way to increase society’s resilience to offensive speech is to allow for more of it, not less. He draws an analogy to childhood diseases, suggesting that exposure builds immunity. Atkinson emphasizes that we should prioritize dealing with the message rather than the messenger, echoing President Obama’s words in an address to the United Nations:
"..the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech…"
For those of us committed to a global humanist renaissance, this principle must be upheld and championed as a cornerstone of our collective mission. It is not just a defence of free speech as a legal right but a call to cultivate a society that is intellectually robust, emotionally mature, and capable of engaging with the complexities of the human experience.
Resilience Through Exposure
Human history is replete with examples of societies that have thrived when they embraced diversity of thought and crumbled when they sought to suppress it. The flourishing of ancient Athens, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment—these were periods marked by an explosion of ideas, where the clash of differing perspectives sparked innovation, progress, and profound cultural transformation. Conversely, periods of intellectual stagnation and decline have often coincided with the rise of dogmatism and censorship.
The human mind is not a fragile vessel that must be shielded from all harm; it is an adaptable, resilient organ that grows stronger through challenge and adversity. Just as our immune systems develop resistance to diseases by being exposed to pathogens, our intellectual and emotional resilience is fortified by engaging with a wide range of ideas, including those that may be uncomfortable, challenging, or even offensive.
When society attempts to insulate itself from offensive speech, it inadvertently creates an environment of intellectual fragility. People become less capable of dealing with dissenting opinions, less skilled at critical thinking, and more prone to react with outrage rather than reason. This fragility is evident in the increasing polarization of public discourse, where people retreat into echo chambers, unwilling or unable to engage with those who hold differing views.
For humanists, the goal is not to create a society where everyone agrees on everything—that would be both unrealistic and undesirable. Rather, our goal should be to cultivate a society where disagreements can be aired openly, where ideas can be debated rigorously, and where truth emerges not through the suppression of dissent but through the robust contestation of ideas. This is the essence of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and it is the foundation upon which humanism must stand.
To build this kind of society, we must embrace the idea that more speech, not less, is the antidote to the problems that arise from offensive or harmful ideas. By allowing a wide range of viewpoints to be expressed, we create opportunities for education, for the refinement of ideas, and for the building of mutual understanding. Offensive ideas do not disappear when they are suppressed; they merely go underground, where they can fester and grow unchecked. By bringing these ideas into the light, we can confront them directly, expose their flaws, and offer better alternatives.
Humanist Advocacy
The case for more speech is not just a pragmatic argument; it is deeply rooted in the ethical principles that underpin humanism. Humanists believe in the power of reason, the value of critical thinking, and the importance of evidence-based discourse. These principles demand that we confront ideas, no matter how uncomfortable they may be, with logic, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to the truth.
Humanism, as a movement, has always been about challenging orthodoxy and questioning the status quo. From the early humanists of the Renaissance who dared to question the authority of the Church, to modern humanists who advocate for secularism, human rights, and social justice, the movement has thrived on the open exchange of ideas. It is through this exchange that humanism has evolved and adapted to the changing needs of society.
In advocating for more speech, humanists are not defending the content of every offensive idea but rather the principle that all ideas should be open to scrutiny. This is not a defence of hate speech, nor is it an argument for the unfettered right to harm others through words. Instead, it is an argument for the belief that bad ideas are best countered with better ideas, that ignorance is best dispelled with knowledge, and that prejudice is best overcome with empathy and understanding.
Humanists must champion the idea that the best response to offensive speech is not repression, but more speech. This means engaging with those who hold offensive views, not by silencing them, but by challenging them. It means creating spaces where dialogue can occur, where ideas can be debated, and where people can learn from one another. It means promoting a culture of intellectual humility, where we recognize that none of us has a monopoly on truth, and where we are all open to the possibility that we might be wrong.
This approach aligns with the broader humanist mission of promoting rational dialogue and critical thinking. In a world that is increasingly complex and interconnected, the ability to engage thoughtfully and respectfully with diverse perspectives is more important than ever. Humanists must lead the way in fostering this kind of engagement, not just within our own communities, but across the broader society.
We live in a time of great challenges, but also great opportunities. The digital age has made it possible for more people to share their ideas than ever before, but it has also created new challenges in managing the sheer volume and diversity of speech. In this context, the humanist commitment to more speech is not just a theoretical principle; it is a practical strategy for navigating the complexities of the modern world.
By advocating for more speech, humanists can help build a society that is more resilient, more compassionate, and more capable of addressing the challenges we face. We can help create a world where ideas are not feared but explored, where differences are not shunned but celebrated, and where truth is not dictated by authority but discovered through reasoned inquiry. This is the vision of the worldwide humanist revival—a world where the free exchange of ideas leads to a deeper understanding of our shared humanity and a brighter future for all.
Let us embrace this vision, not by retreating from the challenges of offensive speech but by meeting them head-on with courage, conviction, and an unwavering commitment to the principles of humanism. In doing so, we can ensure that the international humanist resurgence is not just a movement for our time but a legacy for the generations to come.
The Changing Weight of Words
In 2012, in the wake of the Arab Spring, President Obama stood before the United Nations and made a compelling case for more speech as the antidote to hateful rhetoric. His words, delivered amidst a wave of civil unrest and demands for greater freedom across the Middle East, echoed a deep commitment to the principles of free expression, even in the face of offensive or inflammatory content. Yet, as we now face a surge of civil unrest and polarization in the West, we must ask: Do those words still hold the same weight in 2024?
In a world where the boundaries of free speech are increasingly tested, it is essential to question whether the same principles that were championed a decade ago are being upheld or whether there is now a double standard at play. When the West calls for the suppression of certain voices under the guise of maintaining public order or protecting societal values, are we witnessing the erosion of the very freedoms once so fervently defended?
Obama's speech reminds us that the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression but more speech. However, the rising tide of censorship and the selective application of free speech principles suggest a shift in this stance. Is there now one set of rules for the West and another for the rest of the world? Or have we simply forgotten the lessons that history has taught us about the dangers of silencing dissent?
This thought bubble serves as a call to hold ourselves and our leaders accountable. Hypocrisy in the application of free speech laws only weakens the moral authority of those who claim to champion freedom. The only way to ensure that the principles of free expression remain strong is to apply them consistently, without exception, and to challenge the hypocrisy that threatens to undermine them.
As we navigate the complexities of free speech in a modern, interconnected world, we must remember that the true test of our commitment to these ideals lies not in how we protect speech that we agree with but in how we defend the speech that challenges us, offends us, or even threatens our own comfort. In doing so, we honour the spirit of the words spoken at the United Nations in 2012 and ensure that they continue to guide us in our pursuit of a just and free society.
The New Intolerance
As society evolves, so too do the ways in which it attempts to manage the complexities of free expression. In his speech, Rowan Atkinson introduces the concept of a "New Intolerance"—a subtle but pervasive shift in societal attitudes toward speech and dissent. This new form of intolerance is characterized not by the overt authoritarianism of past regimes but by a more insidious form of social control, often cloaked in the language of moral and social protection. It is a trend that should alarm humanists, as it mirrors historical attempts to suppress dissent, albeit under a different guise.
The New Intolerance Cloaked in Moral and Social Protection
In contemporary discourse, the rise of what Atkinson terms "The New Intolerance" is often shrouded in the language of moral and social protection. This phenomenon refers to the increasingly prevalent tendency to suppress certain viewpoints or expressions under the guise of safeguarding public morality or social harmony. While the intentions behind such measures may be noble—aiming to protect individuals from harm, discrimination, or offensive speech—they frequently result in the unintended consequence of stifling free expression.
This new form of intolerance manifests in various ways, from legal restrictions and censorship to social ostracism and cancel culture. For example, laws that criminalize speech deemed offensive or hateful, while intended to protect vulnerable groups, can be overly broad and subject to misuse. They risk becoming tools for silencing dissent and curbing legitimate debate, as seen in cases where people face legal repercussions for making satirical or critical remarks.
Similarly, on social media and other public platforms, the pressure to conform to prevailing social norms can lead to self-censorship and the exclusion of controversial or unpopular opinions. The fear of being labelled as intolerant or offensive can deter people from expressing their true thoughts, thereby narrowing the scope of public discourse and hindering the free exchange of ideas.
It is crucial to recognize that this new form of intolerance, despite its protective veneer, poses a significant threat to the core humanist value of free speech. Humanism thrives on the open and fearless exchange of ideas, which is essential for the pursuit of knowledge, the questioning of dogma, and the promotion of social progress. To navigate the challenges posed by "The New Intolerance," humanists must advocate for a balanced approach that protects people from genuine harm while steadfastly defending the right to free expression.
Authoritarian Tendencies
Atkinson’s critique of the New Intolerance highlights a growing trend where societies, in their efforts to create more inclusive and respectful environments, inadvertently cultivate authoritarian tendencies. These tendencies manifest in the increasing willingness of governments, institutions, and even individuals to police speech and thought, often with the intention of protecting vulnerable groups from harm. The desire to shield people from offensive or harmful speech is, on the surface, a noble one. However, when this desire is taken to extremes, it leads to the suppression of legitimate discourse and the stifling of intellectual diversity.
Historically, authoritarian regimes have often used the guise of moral or social protection to justify the suppression of dissent. Whether it was the Inquisition's persecution of heretics, the censorship of dissenting voices under totalitarian regimes, or the McCarthy-era witch hunts in the United States, the common thread has been the use of moral righteousness as a pretext for silencing opposition. The New Intolerance, while not as overtly brutal, follows a similar pattern. It seeks to control what can be said and who can say it, not through direct violence but through legal restrictions, social ostracism, and public shaming.
One of the dangers of this trend is that it often gains traction through the support of well-intentioned people who genuinely believe they are promoting social justice. However, as Atkinson points out, this well-meaning ambition to create a more respectful society can inadvertently create a culture of fear and conformity, where dissenting opinions are not just discouraged but actively punished. The result is a society that, while ostensibly free, is increasingly characterized by self-censorship and the policing of thought—a society where true freedom of expression is at risk of being eroded.
Intolerance of Intolerance
A particularly troubling aspect of the New Intolerance is the paradoxical stance of being intolerant toward intolerance. This approach, often summarized by the seemingly inarguable statement, "I am only intolerant of intolerance," is deeply problematic. While it may appear to be a logical and ethical position, it actually perpetuates a cycle of censorship and suppression rather than addressing the root causes of prejudice and bigotry.
The concept of intolerance towards intolerance is rooted in the idea that certain viewpoints are so harmful or dangerous that they should not be allowed to be expressed at all. This leads to the exclusion of these viewpoints from public discourse, often without any attempt to engage with or understand them. By simply silencing these views, society misses the opportunity to confront and challenge them meaningfully. Prejudices and biases are not eliminated by repressing their expression; they are more likely to grow in the shadows, unchallenged and unexamined.
Moreover, the outright suppression of certain viewpoints can create a sense of victimization among those who hold them. They may perceive themselves as being unjustly silenced, which can galvanize their resolve and attract sympathy from others who view the suppression as an overreach of authority. This can inadvertently lend legitimacy to the very ideologies that society aims to suppress.
A more effective approach is to confront and challenge harmful viewpoints openly. By allowing these views to be expressed, society can engage with them directly, exposing their flaws and countering them with reason, evidence, and ethical argumentation. This not only undermines the legitimacy of harmful ideologies but also educates the public on the values of critical thinking and open dialogue.
The philosopher Karl Popper addressed this paradox in his concept of the "paradox of tolerance," which suggests that a tolerant society should not tolerate the intolerant because doing so could ultimately lead to the destruction of tolerance itself. While Popper's argument has merit, it is crucial to distinguish between actions and speech. Intolerance of actions that directly harm others (such as violence or discrimination) is necessary to protect the rights and dignity of all people. However, when intolerance is applied to speech—particularly speech that is merely offensive or provocative—it becomes a tool of oppression rather than a defence of justice.
To effectively combat intolerance, humanists must resist the temptation to simply silence those with whom they disagree. Instead, we must engage with these viewpoints, expose their flaws, and counter them with reasoned arguments and evidence. This approach not only upholds the principles of free speech but also strengthens society’s ability to deal with complex and controversial issues in a mature and constructive manner.
The New Intolerance, with its focus on protecting people from offensive speech, risks creating a society that is less resilient, open, and capable of handling the challenges of a diverse and pluralistic world. For the global humanist philosophy movement, this is a critical issue. We must advocate for a society robust enough to tolerate dissent, criticism, and even offence. Only by doing so can we ensure that the ideals of humanism—freedom, reason, and compassion—continue to thrive in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.
Understanding the Paradox of Tolerance with Karl Popper
Imagine we’re telling a story to children about how to keep a playground safe and fun for everyone. This playground is big, with lots of different kids who have different ideas about how to play. Some kids want to play tag, some want to build sandcastles, and others just want to sit and talk. To make sure everyone gets along, there’s a rule: “Everyone should be tolerant of each other’s games.” That means no one should stop others from playing the way they want, as long as everyone is being kind and fair.
But then, something tricky happens. A group of kids shows up, and they don’t want to play nicely with others. They want to make new rules, rules that say, “Only our games are allowed, and anyone who plays differently is wrong.” These kids are not being tolerant at all. Now, the other kids have a big decision to make. Should they allow this group to keep playing, even though they want to take over the whole playground? Or should they tell them “No, we can’t let you do that, because you’re not being fair to everyone else.”
This is where Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance” comes into play. The paradox says that if we are too tolerant—even tolerant of those who are intolerant—then the playground (or society) could become a place where tolerance disappears entirely. If the kids let the mean group take over, soon no one else will be able to play the way they like, and the playground won’t be fun for anyone anymore.
These four comics illustrate this idea in different ways. I apologize for repeating the same theme, but in today's society, the persistence of this phenomenon compels me to share all four and walk you through them in detail. Some of us may need the explicit breakdown to fully grasp the nuances at play.
The Nazi Comic: Here, we see what happens when tolerance is extended to Nazis, who demand that their hateful ideas be respected. If allowed, they would destroy the very freedom that lets everyone else play in peace. The answer must be “No, we cannot tolerate your intolerance.”
The Islamism Comic: In this version, the intolerance comes from those who claim that their beliefs should be above criticism. If society bends to this demand, it creates an environment where only one viewpoint is allowed, which can lead to the suppression of all other voices. Again, the message is clear: “Tolerance cannot extend to those who wish to destroy it.”
The Cultural Marxism Comic: This comic shows how even ideas that start with good intentions—like wanting to make things fair—can become oppressive when taken to extremes. The intolerance of differing opinions under such regimes shows why it’s important to stand firm against any movement that demands total control over how people think or live. The message is clear: “Tolerance cannot extend to those who seek to impose uniformity and suppress diverse voices.”
The Communism Comic: This comic illustrates how ideologies that start with promises of equality and justice can spiral into systems of control that suppress dissent and enforce conformity. Under such regimes, the desire to create a fair society can lead to the eradication of individual freedoms and the enforcement of a single, oppressive worldview. The lesson here is that "Tolerance cannot be granted to those who seek to eliminate the diversity of thought and enforce their ideology as the only acceptable way of life." It's a powerful reminder that even well-intentioned movements can become authoritarian when they refuse to tolerate differing opinions and the natural plurality of human expression.
Teaching this paradox to children, or even to ourselves, reminds us that while it’s important to be kind and open-minded, we must also recognize when someone’s actions or ideas are so harmful that they threaten the very principle of tolerance. Popper’s paradox isn’t about being mean or unfair; it’s about protecting the freedom and fairness of the playground so that everyone can enjoy it, not just a few who want to make all the rules.
So, when we talk about “intolerance of intolerance,” we’re not saying we should be mean to people who disagree with us. We’re saying that to keep the playground fun and safe for everyone, we sometimes have to stand up and say “No, we won’t let you ruin this for others.” That’s how we defend the true spirit of tolerance and ensure that the playground remains a place where everyone is welcome.
Critique of the "Outrage Industry"
In the landscape of modern discourse, few forces have proven as destructive to free speech as the burgeoning "Outrage Industry." This phenomenon, driven by the symbiotic relationship between media, public figures, and the increasingly reactive nature of online communities, has transformed the way society engages with ideas. What once might have been a healthy exchange of differing opinions has devolved into a toxic cycle of indignation and retaliation. Rowan Atkinson, referencing Sir Salman Rushdie, describes it as a force where self-appointed arbiters of the public good encourage media-stoked outrage to which authorities feel under immense pressure to react. For humanists who champion reason, empathy, and open dialogue, the Outrage Industry represents a profound threat to the principles we hold dear.
Media and Public Outrage
The media, both traditional and digital, has always played a critical role in shaping public discourse. In an ideal world, it serves as a platform for the dissemination of information, the exchange of ideas, and the facilitation of democratic debate. However, the media landscape has shifted dramatically in recent years, driven by the need for sensationalism and the pursuit of profit. In this new paradigm, outrage has become the currency of the realm, and media outlets are all too willing to cash in.
Public figures, whether they are politicians, celebrities, or influencers, have learned to navigate this environment by stoking outrage as a means of gaining attention and influence. Outrage, after all, is a powerful motivator—it captures attention, drives engagement, and mobilizes masses. In the age of social media, where algorithms prioritize content that provokes strong emotional reactions, outrage has become the quickest path to visibility and virality.
This dynamic creates a feedback loop where media and public figures fuel each other's interests. A provocative statement, a controversial opinion, or an offensive remark is amplified, dissected, and sensationalized, often stripped of context and nuance. The media, in its quest for clicks and views, fans the flames of outrage, while public figures either capitalize on the attention or find themselves caught in the crossfire, often with devastating consequences.
But this is not merely a matter of sensational headlines or fleeting controversies. The Outrage Industry exerts a corrosive influence on society, eroding the foundations of civil discourse and transforming public debate into a battleground where the loudest and most indignant voices prevail. In this environment, reasoned discussion, critical thinking, and the search for truth are all but drowned out by the cacophony of outrage.
Impact on Free Speech
The impact of the Outrage Industry on free speech is both profound and insidious. By its very nature, the industry thrives on the suppression of dissenting voices. In a culture where outrage is the dominant mode of engagement, the space for nuanced, thoughtful discussion shrinks while the pressure to conform to prevailing sentiments grows. This leads to a chilling effect on speech, where people—fearing backlash, social ostracism, or even professional consequences—opt for silence over honesty.
Censorship, once the domain of authoritarian governments, now finds a new home in the court of public opinion. The mechanisms of this new censorship are not state-imposed but socially enforced, driven by the collective power of an outraged populace. While legal protections for free speech may remain intact, the practical ability to speak freely is increasingly constrained by the threat of public shaming, cancellation, or worse.
For those who dare to voice controversial or unpopular opinions, the consequences can be severe. Careers have been ruined, reputations destroyed, and lives upended by the relentless machinery of the Outrage Industry. Even those who express themselves in good faith, with the intention of sparking constructive dialogue, can find themselves swept up in the storm of public indignation, their words twisted and weaponized against them.
This environment does not just harm individuals; it impoverishes society as a whole. When the primary response to offensive or controversial speech is to silence it, we lose the opportunity to engage with it, to challenge it, and to learn from it. Instead of confronting harmful ideas head-on, we push them underground, where they can grow unchecked and unchallenged. The Outrage Industry, in its pursuit of short-term gains, undermines the very foundations of a free and open society.
Moreover, the Outrage Industry fosters a culture of conformity, where the pressure to align with the dominant narrative stifles diversity of thought. This is antithetical to the humanist project, which thrives on the exploration of ideas, the questioning of assumptions, and the celebration of intellectual freedom. In a society where outrage dictates the boundaries of acceptable speech, the rich tapestry of human thought is reduced to a monochrome landscape, devoid of the vibrant diversity that drives progress and innovation.
For the global resurgence of humanist values, the challenge posed by the Outrage Industry is clear: we must resist the temptation to engage in the politics of outrage. Instead, we should champion an approach that values dialogue over diatribe, understanding over indignation, and reason over reaction. This is not a call to ignore or dismiss genuine grievances that often underlie expressions of outrage. Rather, it is a call to address those grievances in a way that fosters growth, learning, and mutual respect.
To counter the corrosive effects of the Outrage Industry, humanists must lead by example. We must create and defend spaces where difficult conversations can take place, where ideas can be explored without fear of retribution, and where the search for truth is prioritized over the need to appease or provoke. We must advocate for a culture that values the free exchange of ideas, even when those ideas are uncomfortable or challenging. This is not just a defence of free speech—it is a defence of the very principles that allow humanism to thrive.
In doing so, we can help to dismantle the Outrage Industry and replace it with something far more valuable: a culture of dialogue, empathy, and intellectual freedom. This is the path to a more just, compassionate, and enlightened society, and it is the path that the humanist renewal across the world must walk. Let us reject the politics of outrage and embrace the power of conversation, for it is through conversation that we will find the solutions to the challenges we face and build a better world for all.
Final Thoughts
Free speech is not just a right—it is the heartbeat of human progress, the foundation upon which the edifice of democracy stands, and the catalyst for every social, scientific, and moral advancement humanity has ever known. It is the sword that cuts through the darkness of ignorance and the shield that guards against the tyranny of dogma. For those who dare to call themselves humanists, it is our sacred duty to defend this right with unwavering conviction, for in doing so, we defend the very essence of what it means to be human.
Throughout this essay, we have explored the critical importance of free speech, drawing inspiration from Rowan Atkinson’s powerful defence and examining the threats posed by overreaching laws and the pernicious influence of the Outrage Industry. We have seen how the New Intolerance, cloaked in the guise of moral righteousness, seeks to silence dissent and stifle the vibrant diversity of thought that is the lifeblood of a free society. And we have made the case for more speech, not less, as the path to a resilient, enlightened, and compassionate world.
Now, as we stand at the crossroads of a global humanist renaissance, the challenge before us is clear. We must rise as defenders of free speech, not just in word but in deed. We must advocate for legal reforms that protect the right to speak freely and resist the encroachment of laws that seek to censor and control. But more than that, we must cultivate a cultural shift—one that embraces open dialogue, even in the face of discomfort; one that values the exchange of ideas over the suppression of dissent; one that recognizes that the strength of a society is measured not by its conformity but by its capacity to tolerate and engage with diversity.
This is our call to action: to be the torchbearers of free speech in a world that increasingly seeks to snuff it out. To create spaces where ideas can flourish, where disagreements can be aired with respect and reason, and where the pursuit of truth is placed above all else. We must be the voices that say "No" to censorship, "No" to the silencing of dissent, and "Yes" to the messy, challenging, but ultimately beautiful process of free expression.
As humanists, we are the guardians of the future. Let us ensure that the future we build is one where free speech is not just protected but celebrated as the cornerstone of our shared humanity. Let us be relentless in our defence of this right, knowing that in doing so, we are defending the very foundation of a just, free, and enlightened world. Let the flame of free speech burn brightly in our hearts, lighting the way for generations to come, and let our legacy be one of courage, conviction, and unwavering commitment to the principles that define us as humanists.
The time to act is now. Let us rise to the challenge and be the vanguards of a new era of free expression, where the power of words is harnessed not to divide, but to unite, to educate, to empower, and to uplift all of humanity.
Further Reading: Books That Champion Free Speech and Humanist Values
To deepen your understanding of the complex relationship between free speech, humanism, and societal progress, I’ve curated a list of books that resonate with the themes discussed in this essay. Each of these works offers valuable insights into the importance of protecting free expression and fostering open dialogue in a world increasingly prone to censorship and intolerance.
1. "Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World" by Timothy Garton Ash: This book is a comprehensive exploration of free speech in the digital age. Timothy Garton Ash outlines ten principles that are essential for maintaining free expression in a globally connected world. His approach is particularly relevant to the current climate, where the internet both enables and restricts free speech. For those who are part of the global humanist movement, this book provides a nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by our interconnected world, echoing the need for more speech, not less.
2. "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill: A timeless classic, "On Liberty" remains one of the most important works on the philosophy of freedom. Mill’s advocacy for individual liberty and his arguments against societal and governmental control over thought and expression are foundational to any discussion on free speech. This book aligns perfectly with the essay’s emphasis on resisting the New Intolerance and fostering a culture where ideas can be openly debated and contested.
3. "The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure" by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt: This book addresses the rise of a culture that seeks to shield people, particularly young adults, from ideas and expressions that might cause discomfort. Lukianoff and Haidt explore how this cultural shift undermines resilience and intellectual growth. Their insights into the psychological impacts of suppressing free speech complement the essay’s argument for building societal resilience through exposure to diverse ideas and open dialogue.
4. "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" by Steven Pinker: While not exclusively about free speech, Steven Pinker’s exploration of the historical decline in violence is deeply intertwined with the rise of Enlightenment values, including the importance of reason, science, and open discourse. Pinker’s work supports the essay’s contention that the progress of human rights and social justice is closely linked to the expansion of free speech and the open exchange of ideas.
5. "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan: Carl Sagan’s classic work advocates for scientific skepticism and critical thinking, both of which are essential components of a society that values free speech. "The Demon-Haunted World" is a call to arms against ignorance and dogma, making it a perfect companion to the essay’s argument for more speech as a means of challenging harmful ideas and promoting humanist values. Sagan’s emphasis on the need for a well-informed public to engage in open dialogue resonates with the essay’s overarching themes.