Book Reviewed: Free Speech: A History from Socrates to social media by Jacob Mchangama

Free Speech must ride on a free lunch Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world recently purchased the social media giant Twitter and said that his decision to buy Twitter was due to the progressive erosion of free speech. Free speech is a much-debated topic since it is closely monitored and regulated not only by social media but also by most democratically elected governments. In this book, the author says, that free speech is still an experiment, and no one can guarantee the outcome of providing a free, equal, and instant voice. It seems like free speech is an abstract and theoretical principle when confronted with tangible threats and harms. But despite its flaws, a world with less free speech will also be less tolerant and less democratic. A commitment to free speech should have a zero-tolerance policy toward organized threats, intimidation, and violence by groups seeking to establish parallel systems of authority. History has too many examples, Christians were once a small and persecuted sect during the first two hundred years after Christ, but when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, heretics and non-believers were severely persecuted. In the ninth century CE, Ibn al-Rawandi rejected Muhammad’s prophecy and Islamic doctrines without any serious retribution. If he were alive today, his life and liberty would be severely threatened, and in Muslim countries, he would have been in violation of blasphemy laws and punished by death. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy, and free exchange of ideas is essential in human endeavors and advancement. It promotes democracy, equality, and societal harmony. Most governments also have a legal system where free speech is distinguished from hate speech. The debate then would be where free speech becomes hate speech. But the laws in most democratic societies are fluid, because hateful or discriminatory speech becomes hate in specific contexts that directly causes imminent and serious harm to a group of a particular race, gender, their beliefs, or national origin. The "hate speech" at best is ineffective and counterproductive because this allows democratic governments, social media, and private organizations to monitor “hate speech” and regulate such behaviors. It turns out that free speech and human rights are different in the eyes of the law. In many West European countries and all Muslim countries, questioning about the Muhammad and Islamic teachings are considered hate speech, while one can questions any other religion and its teachings freely and that never becomes a hate speech. It appears that questioning about Islam incites violence from Muslims and jihad terrorism, hence, to avert such a violence, countries make hate speech laws. But there is no threat of violence from people of other faiths when their religions are discussed openly and honestly. The author discusses the free speech in the context of history and doesn’t discuss much about the digital world where social media have dominated people’s lives. The reading is a little heavy, you need patience with the author’s narratives.