064 - Free Speech & Society: the Internet Age & Hegel

Free speech is of course linked to freedom.  And freedom is the cornerstone of Hegel's philosophy.  

Today free speech is an issue with respect to social media platforms, which are used by literally billions of people over the world.  Yes billions.  And who exactly controls what can be said on these platforms?  Up to now it has been a handful of executives.  And some claim that free speech has been curtailed to a degree favoring the views of these executives.  

Most nation-states have laws that govern the limits of free speech, such as libel, fraud, incitement, and sedition.  Do these laws apply the Internet?  

Hegel had things to say about free speech.  In his Elements of the Philosophy of Right he discusses it, and notes that it is the state that gives freedom to individuals, and if the state is destroyed, so is freedom, including free speech.  But he saw the problems inherent in democracies of competing factions.  And these problems are still being worked out some 200 years later.

This episode explores the issues surrounding free speech from an historical, philosophical, and Hegelian point of view, in light of the new Internet environment. 

Transcript

Gregory Novak 0:01

Hello, this is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist episode 64. Welcome back. The purpose of this podcast is to explore philosophy. Uh, psychology and science. With an emphasis on the great 18th century. Philosopher George Wilhem Friedrich Hagle. And my message is simple. Don't keep half your brain tied behind your back. Your mind is your greatest asset. Use it to find and achieve your purpose in life. In this episode, I'm going to be exploring a very interesting topic. These days, free speech. The reason is that it's become an issue today, particularly in those countries that allow free speech, the liberal democracies that, that are supposed to have free speech. And why this topic has become so important today has to do with the internet and social media. In particular. Free speech has become, an issue regarding the social media app, Twitter. And the question is who and what content should be allowed there and who makes those decisions? Now, I don't want to spend a lot of time here debating the situation with Twitter, but I do believe it raises some fundamental issues regarding free speech. In today's internet age. Now. We all know we've not have the right to scream fire in a crowded movie theater. Laws regarding the limits of free speech, vary country to country and even province to province, state to state. Let's briefly review some of the main categories where free speech is in fact limited today in liberal democracies. And it is against the law. In most places, they are. Incitement. Defamation fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words and threats. Let's go through these one by one briefly. Incitement is causing or giving reasons for others to commit crimes. This is the basis of the impeachment case brought against former us president Donald Trump regarding the January six capital riots in Washington, DC. Defamation. Involves public slander. And there are libel laws in most democracies that forbid purposeful public slanders. I said, these laws can vary country by country. But basically it contends that libel exists. If one. The defamation is published a broadcast in some public manner to a person being defamed was identified. Three of the remarks had a negative impact on the person's reputation for. That the information presented was false and five. There's a consideration, a different view regarding public versus private individuals. Public figures must prove intent. To mislead or misinformed or private individuals or rented these do not. They can seek damages. Private people can seek damages simply if the information was false. This is because public figures are often rarely covered in the media and, that mistakes can happen based on this. so the, the standard is much higher. to, in order to Sue a media outlet, the public figure must prove that they intended to defame the celebrity. Obscenity laws are probably the most ambiguous of the mall. And these certainly do change over time, but they still exist. In the United States, it is based on what is called community standards. Whenever that means. And in particular how obscene material is delivered into whom. and there's particular emphasis here put obviously on the safety of children. However any quick search of the internet will show pretty much anything can be found there. As I said, the one exception being child pornography, which is one of the, things that I discussed and strictly against the line in any format. But other than that, pretty much everything goes today. And. The thing though, obscenity laws are very hard to determine. and they, they change every time. The case is not close to, I guess, community standards change over time. It's one judge in the 1960s said it's tough to describe, but I know when I see it, So for example, community and Lenny, Bruce was convicted many times for his standup act back in the 1950s and sixties, just because he said a few. Tame swear words. Fast forward a decade or two, and Karma's, we're allowed to say almost anything. I don't know if any of you are familiar with Andrew dice clay. Uh, there's nothing that does not come out of his mouth. and he did not ever have to fear being arrested. Now today you can be canceled by others as they say, but you cannot be arrested. And. However, the issue of obscenity on the internet is by no means settled. And I expect this issue to continue to be debated in the future. Now fighting words is an interesting one. Interesting name. It is like incitement, but it has to do with inciting harm or retaliation against a perpetrator who said the fighting words. So if one is inclined to attack another because of what a person said or did to them, the person who said the incendiary words, who did the incendiary action. May be held responsible for a crime. In the United States, the Supreme court is still debating this issue case by case and refining it. For example, they recently said that burning the American flag in public is not inciting others to violence against the flag burners. And does not qualify as fighting words. So if somebody's burning a flag and others come up and beat him up because he's burning the flag that. And that's the person burning the flag. That's not fighting words. And lastly, there are threats, obviously actual threats of violence against other crime, and they're not protected by free speech. Now these laws seem pretty clear and justified. So what is the issue? Well, the issue is, as you said, with Twitter and other social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Tik TOK. The question is who decides. What can appear there? And for those that may not know, Twitter is a very large social media platform. Users can follow individuals, companies, and topics and post their own comments or tweets on the platform. And these tweets can then be commented on by anyone. In fact, it's so large in 2022, there were over 1 billion users worldwide and Twitter. That accounts for an astonishing, nearly 20% of the entire world's population. And Twitter's just one of many social media platforms and there's ones that are even bigger than Twitter. Facebook is the largest with nearly 3 billion, monthly active users. That's incredible. Uh, Twitter has become more of a news platform where the other major platforms are oriented more towards family and friends. Twitter is the platform that prominent political figures, pundits, and other high visibility people use to express their opinion. And this is where the controversy comes in. It appears that some Twitter executives over the past few years were censoring some comments. And content within the site. Now recently, billionaire Elon Musk. Um, from Tesla, the car company, the electric car company, he's one of the richest people on the plan. He just recently bought Twitter, which you said for the reason of restoring free speech. No. What he's doing, there was an unfolding story and was day by day, hour by hour. We'll see how this works out in the fullness of time. But the important thing here I believe is that. Is the technology behind this and how it is changing our world. Now we've talked about. How technology changes the world. Um, before, particularly in episodes, 2148 and 54. A theme that emerged in all these episodes is that the electronic revolution fundamentally changed the world from a literary dominated one with its emphasis on visual linear, left brain thinking. To an electronic media environment, which is more holistic, more, right-brain more all at once. More environmental. I would urge you to go back and listen to these episodes to get the full understanding of these points. It's episode 2148 and 54. But the result is, is I've often said. But because of the internet, we all now live in a global living room. Forget the global village. We can instantly communicate in real time with anyone across the globe. Like they're sitting in a chair across from us in our living room. And platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide a mechanism for this. The growth of the Hagle study group on Facebook. Of which I'm one of the four administrators as a case in point. We've grown the group from a few hundred Hagle enthusiasts to over 30,000 worldwide today, this is the kind of reach the internet and these platforms provide. But the issue is this should a handful of executives at these companies have control over what we see so that's the purpose of this episode to discuss just what free speech means in the internet age. And. In particular, what philosophy in general and Hagle specifically? Uh, have to say about this, so let's get into it. When did the idea of free speech originate? We're like so many other important ideas. It began an ancient Athens free speech was the cornerstone of the Athenian democracy. That which lasted from approximately 500 BCE to 3 22 BC. Nearly 200 years. And this was a great period for philosophy as well as many of you aren't sure know, it produced three of the greatest philosophers to ever live Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The issue of free speech plays an important role in their lives and in the case of Socrates of his death. And we'll get to this in a moment. It seems that free speech. In democracy do go hand in hand in. In the political state, and this was recognized in ancient Athens. And I'm under authoritarian regimes, free speeches. Forbidden one cannot criticize the ruler. And under democracy, each citizen has a right to be heard and. In ancient Athens, there were in fact, two words for free speeches is interesting. I say Gloria. And Patricia. In Athens in ancient Athens, it's, Goria referred to the equal rights of citizens to participate in public discourse in, uh, in the democratic assembly and said has more of a political connotation. To have one's voice be heard in discussing political issues. On the other hand per Rishi refers to the freedom to say whatever. Wants at any time to anyone? And both concepts are key to Athenian democracy. But also, we must remember that Socrates was put to death for his words during this period. So we have a contradiction here. Free speech. I Sogorea Um, up to a point and this brings up something that's very relevant today and Hagle touched on it as well. The nation state a democratic one is the foundation that supplies the freedom. Of speech to as citizens without this foundation, you pull out. Uh, the foundation. Uh, you pull out the rug from under the feet of democracy and authoritarian government takes over it and free speech has greatly curtailed if not eliminated entirely. And we've seen this over and over again and all totalitarian regimes. So free speech requires a democracy, a liberal democracy to ensure this right. But what about speech that attempts to overthrow this democracy? Should this be allowed? And here's the quandary. Uh, democratic constitution is needed to ensure free speech, but a free speech is used to undermine it. Free speech would be lost. So appears there's a limit. And the biggest limit on this free speech is the, is advocating the overthrowing of the government that provides the free speech in the first place. Now, of course, this is a tricky. Question because of the various nuances of public speech and how things are interpreted. Everybody has their own interpretation of what was said, et cetera. So generally it seems that free speech should be allowed as much as possible, as long as it doesn't violate those issues. We said previously, and as long as it does not incite a political change against the democratic nation state. Then the state has a right to curtail it and fight against it. Because if it doesn't then free speech itself might disappear. So speech advocating the overthrow, the government should not be allowed. And here's where another gray area appears. Just what constitutes sedition. The word sedition itself goes back to Roman times. So DTO literally going apart. It meant going against a magistrate and it was punishable by death. Perhaps the greatest trial in history regard sedition. And that was the trial of Jesus who was brought before. The Roman pilot and accused of sedition. And sedition laws have been used to prosecute offenders in most democratic countries up to the present day. With many of the January six rioters in the United States being indicted for seditious acts during the attack on the us Capitol. So those are the definitions of the rough limits of free speech. But let's bring this back to philosophy. As we've covered here over and over again. Freedom is the key concept for Hagle. We have discussed freedom here several times in particular episode. 53. And before that episode 46, but most importantly way back in episode 14, entitled freedom, the core concept of Hegel's project. And all these episodes I've stressed. That increased freedom is what spirit is driving for and that any limits on freedom suppress this goal. So are these limits on free speech that I've discussed holding back the progress of freedom. Not really. There's a difference between criticizing the government and advocating the overthrow of the government. Most countries allow peaceful protest and we argue and debate the laws of the land and even change them when necessary. But there's the fact that we cannot, nor is the nation state that bestows this freedom to us without it, we cannot be free. So it needs to be guarded and protected. The simple fact is we are not isolated individuals. But individuals within a family, within a community and within a nation state, and is the social bond that truly allows our freedom to express itself. And this is what I'll be discussing next. And I'm going to bring this back to Hagle because it is so important. let's begin by going way back to Hegel's master-slave dialectic. I believe that a case could be made that the whole issue of social order. Is a response to the original conflict that of the master and the slave. Let me explain. Freewill is not independent with not, limitations. Freewill does not mean my way or the highway. There's an overriding social aspect of free will free will, does not mean that. For me to freewill, you must not have free. Will. Now, this is the original setup that Hagle exposes in the master slave dialectic, which he covered in the phenomenology of spirit. We did an entire episode in this episode, 13. Just to review. Hey go. Shows that to be self-conscious in the first place. Uh, consciousness needs to be aware of another consciousness to realize its own. Self-consciousness. In other words, the other self-consciousness allows one to know that they are the self and not that self. Seeing the other self allows them to understand that they're in fact, a self that is being observed. This self is now self-conscious in terms of that is being observed. You're familiar with the term self-consciousness meaning overly aware of what others think of you. He's very, self-conscious you hear that? Well, this explains what's going on here nicely. But it immediately presents a problem. Each consciousness in the beginning, wonders. Are you a figment of my imagination or am I one of yours? It's Chris Christopherson shots from the stage in the film. A star is born back in 1976. And more so each self is immediately threatened by the other self. So each self wants to be the only one fully conscious and free, and they see the other as a threat to this freedom they want to be observed is conscious and free. And initially believed that the other must be deprived of this freedom to be able to observe it in them. So a struggling saves a life and Destro for recognition, It ends up when one consciousness is willing to give up his life for this total freedom. And the other is not. So the one willing to give up its life becomes the master while the other, the slave who would rather give up their freedom than die. And they ended up doing the bidding of the master. The master does not kill the slave because the master needs this recognition to continue. As the only true free self-consciousness. And we've, we've seen how this has played out in an ancient times when only the king or Supreme ruler or a dictator was free and the rest, everybody else was subject to the whims of the ruler. Now in hago story, the situation finally resolves itself and the master realizes his whole existence is based on the recognition of the slave who was worthless. Meaning essentially that the master is worthless because the master gets his worth from the worthless slave. And the slave. In turn recognizes a certain freedom that they get in the work that they do. Work cells set you free, as they say. So eventually the master slave relation changes to one of self-recognition respecting the rights of the other in a shared environment. And slowly this idea crept into larger groups than tribes, then societies, then governments and nation states. And eventually there was born. Democratic institutions and liberal democracies. To outstanding examples of the American revolution and the French revolution. Let me pause a little bit and speak to the French revolution and the importance it played in Hegel's mind. Uh, regarding the quest for freedom. Let me quote Hagle. We should not therefore contradict the assertion that the French revolution received. Its first impulse from philosophy in quote. Meaning that the inherent desire for freedom as philosophy espouses was the seed, the Genesis of the revolution and this quote world history is the progress of the consciousness of freedom. Uh, progress, which we have to recognize in its necessity. And quote. So mutually guaranteed freedom became the bedrock of the more modern liberal democracies, the 18th and 19th centuries, and continues on to this day. Also, it is very interesting that hago saw these revolutions as being driven by world historical individuals. And again, as an aside, let me provide an interesting extended quote from contemporary political philosopher, Stephen B. Smith regarding this quote. Hegel's concept of the revolutionary hero is the person responsible for large scale, social and political change? What interested him in particular was the discrepancy between the subjective intentions of individual revolutionary actors and the objective consequences of their deeds. And the series of brilliant analyses Hagle shows how I'm individuals, Alexander Caesar Luther and Napoleon. Are his typical examples. We're often unaware of the larger import of their actions. That's what Caesar thought he was doing and crossing the Rubicon was one thing. The influence that this action had not only on his own time, but on later history is something entirely different and it was no part of his conscious intention. This is the famous galleon doctrine of the cunning of reason. Or by whatever individuals may Have been subjectively intended, the actual import of their disease. Wasn't could not be known to them. Hagle appears to praise the revolutionary hero often Margarie Louie meaning in spite of themselves for helping to advance the cause of human freedom. ANSI is typically more concerned to forgive the revolutionary sins then with sympathizing, with the victims of the heroics, although hago may never actually say that the end justifies the means. He recognizes that progress toward freedom is not achieved. Blamelessly in quote. So. Obviously. this is the idea behind the name of this podcast, the cunning of Geist. And not only the Polian and the other's name by Smith and haggle, I would classify George Washington is one of these. World historical figures regarding the American revolution. Interestingly Napoleon had a huge statue of George Washington in his castle at the time, even ordered a 10 day national holiday in France. When George Washington died. Let's get back to freedom. The master slave dialectic and its resolution shows us that life is with people. And any concept of freedom must recognize that. I can not do harm to someone just because I feel like doing it. There was a mutual consideration going on a sort of golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So people organize and agree to live by certain community standards and laws. Being free is a collective bargain, a mutual agreement. And being free also includes the right of free speech up to a point. Hegel talks a lot about this and his work, the elements of the philosophy of right. And let me summarize very briefly this important work. Handle takes his concept of freedom and free will, which we have discussed and applies it to society at large, including family life, the economy, property rights contracts, and legal system. For Hagle, as we have seen a person is not free unless they participate in all these aspects of social life. He divides his presentation into three spheres. Surprise, surprise. The first is abstract rights in terms of universal rights for all. The second is moral rights, which is still abstract in terms of respecting others. And what we would want them to respect and us and recognizing this both internally and externally. The third is ethical life bringing abstract, right. And abstract morality into the concrete's fear of real life. And this is his famous concept of zit. Kite or ethical life. And. It covers different areas that I mentioned in the life of the state. And interestingly Hagle also observes an individual nation states also interact with each other in a similar fashion. This is a very interesting concept and hopefully we can get into this in the future. But again, there's a problem here. And it's one that we've referred to before is Hegel's not. And we discussed this in episode 48. Hagle, sorry, not with respect to the liberal democracies of this day. And let me explain what this means and to do so I will quote hago scholar, Terry Pinkard, quote. as he Hagle told his class on the philosophy of history in 1831. This in compatibility of modern ultra individualism within necessities of a good and stable social and political life constituted a collision, a not as he called it, which was where he took history to stand after 1830. When the competitive market leads to a competitive and not necessarily cooperative society. The populous divides into factions, and this makes any government impossible since the government will always seem to be just one faction, temporarily ruling over the others. It is this not. He also told us students That the future will have to work out how to disentangle. in quote The exact not quote from haggle is this quote, this collision does not this problem is that with which history has now occupied. And his solution. It has to work out in the future in quote. And angle Warren's as balanced, if not maintain, can lead to actual destruction of the nation state, Leonie provided a quote directly from Hagle quote. Ensuring that on the one hand that the power of the sovereign does not appear as an isolated extreme, and hence simply as an arbitrary power of domination. And then the other that the particular interest of communities, corporations, and individuals did not become isolated either or more important still they ensure that individuals do not present themselves as a crowd or aggregate unorganized in their opinions and volition, and did not become a massive power in opposition to the organic state. If this opposition does make its appearance and it is not. Just superficial, but actually takes on a substantial. Character, the state is close to destruction and quote. Referring to free speech Hagle equates it much the same as social behavior. Uh, we treat one how we act toward one another. He says in the philosophy of right quote. To define freedom of the press as freedom to say and write whatever we please is parallel to the assertion that freedom is such means freedom to do as we please. Talk to this kind is due to wholly uneducated, crude, and superficial ideas and quote. So we have seen that while freedom of speech is central to the functioning of a free society. It does have its obvious limits. If people are going to live together and to recognize the true freedom as a result of their equitable life with others. It's interesting. That is one of the admins of the Hagle study group. We had to wrestle with just these kinds of questions in terms of what is an acceptable post that will allow in the study group. We had to did to determine what should be permitted and not permitted. And I can say in those early days, the Edmonds and I really struggled with what the member guidelines should be with. In fact, the discussions proved to be so difficult to me, ended up having first or right. Administrator guidelines for ourselves and then all agree to them and then proceed to write the member guidelines. It was interesting times. So this shows though that the difficult, isn't just one small corner of the internet get multiplied hundreds and thousands of times when multiplied to the social media giants, just Twitter and Facebook and all that they're dealing with. There's currently a massive struggle going on in social media as to the extent and limits of this free speech to be fair to all and how this turns out, we shall see. And Tagle says this collision this not this problem is that with which history is now occupied. Solution. It has to work out in the future. So that is a wrap for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. As always references will be posted on the podcast Facebook page at cutting of Geist in a day or two. And please like, and follow this page on Facebook. I often post updates there and I comment on each episode from different perspectives in the, in the days in between. Episodes. So you surely want to like, and follow that Facebook page at cunning of Geist. And also. Don't forget to join the Hagle study group on Facebook. If you're not already a member, it's a great group. We've been going strong for over eight years. And speaking of Twitter, you can also follow me there. Gregory Novak at cunning of Geist. And please be sure to spread the word about this podcast, share the links wherever possible. And. Just as a final word. It's the holiday time of year and to all of my listeners. Thank you so much again. Happy holidays. Happy new year. This is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist. See you next time.