Freedom and responsibility

Freedom is something that many search for and freedom of speech is a concept that has been continually driven as a value we must strive toward. It has become somewhat of a religion itself driven in large part by the media and social platforms and it is now commonplace for people to attack places they feel freedom of speech is restricted.

Steemit itself is a place that has attracted a large number of freedom of speech advocates due to the relative lack of censorship inherent in the current system. This means that people can freely post and comment about whatever they desire without the fear of having their content removed.

But, this does not protect them from the consequences of their words. The real free speech advocates are the ones who have likely done their research or thought about it enough to understand that being free to say whatever one wants does not mean that it comes protected from the reactions of others.

For example, people at Steemit are free to post what they like but other users are also free to comment harshly, criticise and flag the content if they so choose. This means that 'free' speech can come at a high cost as there is also freedom in reaction. Of course, those reactions themselves come with their own consequences.

There was the Charlie Hebdo case in Paris a few years ago where a magazine was making money from poking fun at people who are known to be unstable and retaliatory. Even though the magazine has the right to free speech, this does not protect them from the reactions of lunatics. Was the reaction of the murderers warranted? Of course not, but in their broken view of the world, it was to be expected sooner or later.

Should this stop people from speaking freely? In my opinion freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of speech also as words, for better or worse, create emotional reactions in others. Knowing this and inflaming means to take the responsibility to face that emotional response whether the reaction is rational or not. One can't have their cake and eat it too so to speak.

What I have come across lately is a diverse range of people who are more than willing to voice their opinions across various areas strongly yet, expect no opposition. When their views are opposed, they see this as an attack on their right to free speech. Criticism is not an attack on free speech, it is at the core of the concept, it is why it is so important to maintain free speech against governments and authority.

Many claiming to support their 'right' to free speech seem to not have the skin themselves when others exercise their own rights. It appears they want the option open to complain and attack others yet, they do not want the same rights for everyone. Apparently, they have misunderstood what free speech means as it is not only free for a section of a community, it is free for all. This means that they themselves may find themselves on the receiving end as others exercise their voices and displeasure.

The other thing that people seem to misinterpret is that free speech comes protected, that no matter what one says, their can be no reprisal of any kind. Like the case in Paris, this is not true. People will act according to their own value systems and emotional positions even when they contradict free speech itself. This is especially true when any form of criticism is met with an ad hominem argument, a personal attack on the character of the opposition.

Also, there is a large difference with the right to free speech at a governmental level and the rights to free speech in social environments. A social environment is a free market as no one forces people to be or stay acquainted. People are still free to speak but the consequence for the wrong words could be ostracization from the group.

This is a consequence of living in a world of social animals who tend to gather in groups with similar value systems. Speaking out against the group may be welcome in many regards but, there are also social lines that when crossed, carry costs. Membership of groups is not a guaranteed position ever and one must learn the social norms of any groups they choose to be part of or risk expulsion. Some groups are more and less stringent in these lines so understanding the group dynamic is vital.

Part of the problem these days comes when people have a poor understanding of what 'right to free speech' is and the burden of responsibility it comes packaged with. This is combined with socially disconnected people who are more intent on getting their words out while on their soap box than listening to the words of others. This often translates into friction and conflict and leads into poor discourse.

The reason is that because so few are willing to listen, learn and adapt yet expect to be heard, most spend a great deal of time talking past each other without any chance of understanding. This may be another social disease of the internet where people are so accustomed to speaking into the digital void, they have forgotten that a conversation means with someone, not at someone. And when there are more than one person discussing a topic, there are bound to various positions held, which means disagreement.

For many these days, they have grown in a world where people have compromised and agreed with them and most have not faced very strong resistance or been in situations that truly test the strength of their personal fibre. This means that finally when they do meet differing ideas and values, they act immaturely and will resort to verbal/physical attacks on their 'oppressors'. Yes, they feel victimized because someone doesn't agree with their stance on something.

The internet is of course a place full of diverse people and views and there are millions upon millions of groups and cliques where all types of people operate. The beauty of this means that there is always a group for everyone, no one need be left in the cold but, this doesn't mean that everyone is suitable for every group.

If one really does want to be part of a particular group than they must accept that they will have to somewhat conform to the standards of the group. If someone doesn't agree with the value system of the group, why would they want membership in the first place? If one enters the group and then decides they do not like the way it functions, it is generally not the mafia, and they are free to leave or try to change the dynamics. If they try to change, they must also expect resistance to change as people are emotional beings who tend to identify with their current position. This is all personal responsibility.

The responsibility of which groups one want to be a part of, what one is willing to speak out for or against and what price one is willing to pay for their stance is in the responsibility of the individual always. Even in the most restricted and censored places on earth, free speech still exists, the difference is that the cost of speaking is so high most will not speak up against it.

But, some do. They are the people that understand their right to speech and take the responsibility for their words and the consequences of action they inspire. In the real world, no matter what a law says, no matter what a culture has granted or taken away, ultimate responsibility lays with the individual and there is no protection, no security in nature, so carry enough curiosity to discover the risks and opportunities before speaking out and, always exercise caution.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]