Marith's Essay: Awarded 2nd Place

Does free speech build or break a community?

When answering this question, the first instinct is to examine the key words of ‘build’ or break’; how can you expect to measure free speech by something that you can’t define? First, though, shouldn’t we really be considering the bigger question- what IS free speech?

Some may spit out a dictionary-perfect definition of ‘the right to express your opinions publicly’, others taking the path of ‘freedom to express yourself, in any way you chose’. But, in reality, free speech isn’t just speech. It’s the ability, in any way, to speak your truth. So, instead of defining ‘build’ or ‘break’ or even ‘community’, we should be defining ‘truth’- an almost impossible task, because truth is not always objective. What’s true for one isn’t always true for another.

In a certain light, free speech affords us an opportunity, rarely found elsewhere. It could be argued that the importance of free speech changes based on the community; it is arguably more important to use the power of free speech in an educational setting to raise questions which would otherwise never have been considered, than in our everyday lives with the aim to cause controversy. Robert O’Neil argues in his book ‘Free speech in the College Community’ that ‘the very mission of a college or university depends on broad latitude for viewpoints in the pursuit of truth and understanding.’ In other words, institutes of higher education rely on free speech to challenge the narrative and force us to consider other perspectives. In studying history, for example, it’s so easy to become so wrapped up in the intricacies of our own argument that we neglect the fact there are other opinions, some of which we may be blind to without the light of free speech. In this way, it could be argued that free speech only builds a community higher, in terms of understanding; it provides an opportunity for us all to see a situation from another point of view. In this case, the argument provides a moment of reflection on the dangers of a lack of free speech.  We have to recognise that free speech is the method through which we can appreciate other perspectives, expand our own horizons. Here, free speech allows us to build the complexity of our opinions and provides opportunities to hear from voices which otherwise may not get a chance to be heard.

In other cases, however, it cannot be forgotten that free speech has the potential to harm. We all face the dangers of free speech when dealing with those who are intent on forcing others to change their beliefs. ‘Hope, not Hate’ address the 2024 anti-immigration riots as ‘The Summer of Chaos’, referring to the mass rioting that occurred across Britain between 30^th July and 7^th August 2024. As a consequence to a tragic attack on several young girls in Merseyside, riots spread across the country, particularly targeting Muslim and immigrant communities. The lasting impact on these communities should not be underestimated- a community that feels unwelcome is likely to become a community which is isolated, thus encouraging further alienation. The danger in disregarding the experiences of those affected by the dangers of free speech should not be overlooked; we would risk erasing the experiences of a whole society, allowing history to repeat itself. Therefore, amidst discussions of retaining the importance of challenge in debate, the damaging effects of some free speech should not be forgotten, or written off as simply constructive. The powers of free speech here go beyond just that of expanding understanding- when used in a capacity to cause harm, free speech risks the unity among a society. This in itself is almost more damaging than allowing harmful free speech in the first place. We must recognise the presence of hateful free speech in our society, and then stand against it, and neglect to give a platform from which to grow and cause lasting harm. By breaking unity in society, free speech shows its power to break a community, when used in a way that aims to cause harm and suffering, regardless of whether that is physical, or emotional.

There is perhaps something to be said, however, that a careful balance between the two is the best option. Though the path of least resistance often provides us with a peaceful alternative, peaceful isn’t always productive. A little resistance to the norm, radical thinking, can move society along in a way unlike any other. Maybe free speech is a carefully weighted balance, neither side necessarily more powerful or influential than the other, each focused on the task at hand. Both arms in an endless power struggle, to overcome the other, to be seen and heard. Though, theoretically, a balance allows two sides to access equal opportunity, human nature ensures that an equal balance cannot be maintained; there is forever a humane drive to ‘win’, or survive. A balance of free speech that allows freedom of expression and restrains its ability to be harmful seems optimistic, when dealing with a world where human nature just decides far too much of our society.

But maybe, for many of us, free speech isn’t just the ability to say and think what you want; it’s the monster under the bed. The unknown; on the one hand, the fear that free speech can breed. What happens if those who challenge you gain power? What happens if that power gets into the wrong hands? (Which hands are the ‘wrong’ ones? The ones that limit free speech?). Free speech represents the fear that can only be felt by a small child, terrified of the prospect of something lurking in the shadows of what is supposed to be a safe haven. The monster under the bed. But, in another way, is free speech not the thing that has consistently broken boundaries worldwide, past, present and future? Is it not those who dared to go against the narrative who we value most in the history books, those who dared speak out against the majority? And, in this way, could free speech be the monster under the bed that forces us to confront our fears, and gives us, initially at least, a challenge to overcome and then the resulting courage that allows us to achieve more than we ever thought was possible? 

So yes, free speech can build a community. It can build a community that can defend itself from injustice. Simultaneously, if we build those defensive walls too high, we risk demonising opposition; we risk breaking that community from within, as a result of the free speech we tried so hard to defend. Isn’t it opposition that leads up to revelation? Isn’t it opposition that forces us to think differently? Defending our free speech (and by extension, our community) is vital, but we mustn’t defend it too well- sometimes, a little bit of rebellion is what’s needed to move a society along. A little bit of injustice to light a fire. A little bit of bravery to take the first step towards change.