Buddha taught that speech is karma. He suggested good speech, true speech, unharsh speech and against gossip.
And, boy, have I often transgressed in these!
But, importantly (at least in my opinion), and certainly in a republic, freedom of speech, just as freedom of conscience and religion, of association , of artistic expression, and sexual preference should be protected in law. Within sound, and without arbitrary limits.
What should also be understood is that law is not everything, and that even law may be unjust and subject to reform. However, what power we have over our speech, that far is also our responsibility to use it for benefit and to avoid degrading it as an instrument to cause suffering.
There are many enemies of free speech. Some, it’s true are of vastly greater power than others. Certainly, the powers of state, of corporations, of the military, of the media and of institutional religion are vehicles for censorship which can and usually do act solely in the interests of the ruling class- and if the rest of the population gain some benefit out of the exercise of their power, that’s just a beneficial by-product.
But also enemies of free speech are those that misuse speech; that take the precious right in vain and turn it to viciousness, division, fraud, scandal, and dangerous misinformation- or simply just hate and general malignancy. Liberty of expression, just as with any hard won right or enfranchisement of the previously marginalised, is best served when embraced in accordance with the common good and for the benefit and harmony of society. The bigot, the scandal merchant, the libeller, the fraud and the charlatan are the lesser enemies of free speech in that they take a shared good for granted and defile it.
I believe in free speech. I believe in good speech. I believe in the preservation of what is good and beneficial. To place those brave voices against imperial domination, against fascist slaughter and the mechanised mauling of the living Earth beside purveyors of lies, of self-aggrandizing agendas, of quackery, and ego-fluffing cults of hatred and division is as much a degradation of the cause of freedom of speech as celebrating the careers of Magda Goebbels and Ernst Rohm would be to the causes of women's liberation and LGBT respectively.
Of course, this latter sense of freedom of speech, leaving aside dangerous misinformation, libel or fraud, isn’t a question of law. Being a scandal-hound, or just being a malicious person aren't things that should be illegal. But there usually are (or certainly were) other social standards that incline to make indulging in such costly and disreputable.
I probably sound like a fossilized moralist pontificating ‘eternal truths’ of social behaviour, but I’m really not. I’ve been many things, but never a puritan. However, I value ‘boring’ rational effort above sensationalist rhetoric and aesthetics- and I see nothing of value in pretending I don't smell a rat when I do hear moneyed interests and privately funded carnival barkers wrapping their performance in the garb of ideological virtue. Neither do I hold such an uncomplicated (or naive) belief that humans are always ruled by rationality and so all that happens in the human world has clear rational structure.
To be free to make mistakes is necessary in becoming fully human. Even mistakes made with power and consequence are, or should be, forgivable. But intentionally causing problems, suffering, or death for one’s own gain, or simply as a whim or unrestrained embrace of ego is of a very different order. I’d stand in everyone’s defence to make mistakes and be free. Though inclined to defend the less powerful against power, I’ve little time or interest in supporting those who consciously make my support difficult, who do not value our common good and make a mockery of our rights. There are many things I don't think highly of, but wouldn't see them made or kept illegal.
If the above positions make me a reactionary, so be it. I’ve long regarded with distaste, if not with growing dread, the fetishisation of identity, be it racial, ethnic, nationalist, religious, and political, so I’m not really interested in how I’m ‘defined’, (though I’d rather be called a reactionary than be a mercenary) Furthermore, I hold to the maxim that “the identity that can be named, is not the real identity”.
Language and speech are, if anything, the essential characteristic of being human. All humans want to be free. And all humanity struggles with the balance between freedom and restraint. In the end, humanity itself is bound to the inconceivably broader and deeper principles of nature and existence. Can we not at least rule ourselves by dispensing with unnecessary causes of suffering? By seeing through the illusions and ghosts born of pretty or powerful sounding words and prioritising only what brings happiness, or at least, the amelioration of suffering?
This is a tough one today.