http://pixabay.com

In Metaphysics and Philosophy it is generally accepted that from ideas creation manifests and is expressed. In Metaphysics our third chakra (voice/speech) is considered the area where we speak our “Truth” in outward expression and because this is the main avenue for communication and connection to others we are not exempt from what we create including what is uttered verbally from our mouths. With free speech comes responsibility as it often is the precursor of actions both good and ill.

Consider the following:

Why is free speech important?
*Without the freedom to follow where thought leads:

•  There is no creativity
• There is no scientific advancement
• There is no technological advancement

Without the freedom to communicate where one’s thought leads

• There is no testing of ideas
• There is no dialogu
• There is no development

Social / Political Reasons for Free Speech
There may be some views, ideas or theories that if put into practice harm people.

• These need to be argued against for if they are not argued against it may not be clear why they are harmful
• In order to be argued against they need to be stated

Hate Speech and Free Speech …

Does free speech mean freedom of hate speech? It depends on the point of free speech, and what hate speech does. Milton urged us to let Truth and Falsehood grapple, for Truth will never be 'put to the worse, in a free and open encounter’—bad speech should be fought with good speech, and truth will win. But hate speech presents structural constraints on a speaker's capacity to fight back. These limits partly silence the targets of hate speech, illustrated in the dynamics of slurs, epithets, and generic speech acts, which promote hate and stereotype the hated. We need a deeper vision of what free speech requires. – Rae Langton Ph.D.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant had much to say about free speech from a philosophical perspective:

**Kant’s defense of free speech is fairly consistent throughout his work, where, more often than not, it is linked to his support for the policies and practices of Frederick the Great. But in his “Theory and Practice” essay, he presents a defense of free speech more generally, commenting on the importance of free speech and its contribution to a free society. He writes: “Freedom of the pen…is the sole palladium of the people’s rights. For to want to deny them this freedom is not only tantamount to taking from them any claim to a right with respect to the supreme commander (according to Hobbes), but is also to withhold from the latter…all knowledge of matters that he himself would change if he knew about them and to put him in contradiction with himself” (TP 8:304).
In this passage, Kant’s claim regarding the importance of free speech is two-fold. His first point, which is fairly straightforward, is that freedom of the press is the only right the people have against the sovereign. That is, they have the right to speak out against policies that they perceive to be unjust or otherwise defective. (It is important to note here that, for the most part, Kant does not believe that people have the right to disobey the law or take action against the sovereign.

The second point is a bit less straightforward. His claim is that a sovereign that outlaws free speech creates a condition where his actions “put him in contradiction with himself.” This language is remarkably similar to what he uses in his moral theory to describe principles that violate the categorical imperative, Kant’s supreme principle of morality. In the Groundwork, Kant claims that when a principle of action fails when tested against the categorical imperative, it fails because something about that principle is contradictory. It may be the case that it is not possible to conceive of the action that comes about as a result of universalizing the underlying principle connected to the action (i.e., a contradiction in conception), or the result of universalizing the principle is self-defeating in some way (i.e., a contradiction in the will).

In the case of the sovereign restricting freedom of the press, the contradiction appears to be more practical. Elsewhere Kant argues what justifies sovereign authority is that his actions are supposed to represent the united will of the people (MM 6:313). But a sovereign that denies free speech and otherwise undermines the conditions necessary to maintain a free society has made it impossible to gather the information needed to represent the will of the people appropriately. In this way, Kant sees any attempt by the sovereign to limit or otherwise suppress the free exchange of ideas, and, in particular, the exchange of ideas among the educated members of society (e.g., academics), as undermining his own authority.

What we say is undeniably connected to what we think and believe. Often we feel our beliefs are absolute and need to be voiced. Often too we are voicing to produce an outcome we feel is best and righteous. The philosophical question then becomes “for who?”

*Dr. Catherine C. McCall
https://catherinemccall.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/free-speech-is-the-freedom-to-offend/

**Chris W. Surprenant
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/kant-virtues-free-society