Free speech, hate speech and disinformation

Hateful rhetoric and predatory lying aren’t new, but each generation faces a test of whether to ignore the hate and lies or confront them by exercising their free speech right

Elon Musk’s tumultuous takeover of Twitter has revived the debate over the intersection of free speech, hate speech and disinformation. As Musk discovers daily, defining and defending free speech takes more than a tweet.

Free speech means the right to express opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal action. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees this right. The United Nations views freedom of expression as a human right.

Despite those sweeping free speech declarations, questions persist over how hate speech and intentional disinformation mesh with free speech. Do people or organizations have the right to vilify individuals or groups they dislike or fear? Do people or organizations have the right to spread information they know is false or misleading? Are hate speech and lies protected by free speech?

Like most rights, free speech is not unlimited. The United States has laws against libel and slander that address defamatory written or oral statements. A good example is the recent $49 million jury verdict against Infowars’ Alex Jones for publicly claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting was a hoax.

Waiting 10 years for a verdict isn’t a satisfying way to resolve a dispute over free speech, hate speech and disinformation. That’s especially so when the vehicle for hate speech and false information is the global spiderweb of the internet.

It would help if we agreed on what free speech is. Michael Douglas, playing President Andrew Shepherd in The American President, described free speech this way: “America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say ‘You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.’”

Shepherd’s defense of free speech came in response to a charge by a political opponent that he was a “card-carrying” member of the American Civil Liberties Union. By contemporary standards, that’s mild criticism.

There are regimes that quash free expression. Iran has questioned, jailed and reportedly killed young Iranians who protested the death of a young woman after her arrest by morality police. China has squelched public dissent in response to its Zero COVID policies and resistance to its edicts in Hong Kong. There have been examples in America, too, such as the police beating of Black protestors on a bridge in Selma, Alabama, in the 1960s or, closer to home and more recently, the use of tear gas to break up protests in Portland.

While liberals and conservatives profess allegiance to free speech, both have faltered in its defense. Liberals on college campuses shun conservative voices and urge bans on controversial voices, including the 45thPresident of the United States, on social media. Conservatives ban books and condemn Black athletes for kneeling during the national anthem.

However, the greatest offense to free speech is blurring its boundaries with hate speech and disinformation. Under Shepherd’s description, hate speech and disinformation qualify for free speech protection. What’s missing from that description is what those of us who deplore hateful rhetoric and predatory lying should do about it.

People are charged and convicted of hate crimes when hate speech spills over into violence or physical intimidation. As the conviction of Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes evidences, predatory lying can land you in prison, too. But there aren’t enough courts, judges or juries in America to litigate all the hate and lies. And there will never be enough content moderators on Twitter or Facebook to block every hateful speech or intentional deception, whether for political gain or personal profit.

Musk adorned himself as a crusader who could save the day for free speech. But after Twitter reinstated untold numbers of formerly banned accounts, the Center for Countering Digital Hate reports a sharp increase in hate speech, problematic content and formerly banned accounts.

Many people have chosen to abandon post-Musk Twitter. I haven’t. Here’s why:

The hate speech and deception on Twitter – and in podcasts and cable news shows – is not new. Antisemitism, for example, is almost as old as time. Waves of immigrants from across the globe to the United States have encountered bigotry. Black Americans still suffer from centuries of slavery, followed by overt and covert Jim Crow laws. The fact that it populates Twitter shouldn’t surprise anyone. What it should do is animate our response.

The part of Shepherd’s lesson on free speech we should embrace is responding to what makes our blood boil, not with hatred or violence, but with firmness and facts. A good measure of free speech is exercising it. And the time has never been better to start exercising it.

Responding to hate speech and disinformation may seem to some like bringing a kitchen knife to a gun fight. I prefer to think of it as leading by example by confronting hate with compassion and lies with facts.

In the threads of Twitter feeds, a single response may get overlooked and lost. But that is a small risk for the potential reward of inspiring a chain of pushback. That pushback is desperately needed to combat real threats. In addition to slurs against gay people and minorities, Twitter now allows posts from groups associated with the Islamic State and accounts connected to QAnon.

“Elon Musk sent up the Bat Signal to every kind of racist, misogynist and homophobe that Twitter was open for business,” Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told The New York Times. “They have reacted accordingly.” The rest of us need to respond to the same Bat Signal and fight back. Allowing the hatred and lies to go unprotested and unexposed gives them credibility and the ability to radicalize the uninformed.

At the end of World War II in Europe, Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower ordered the filming of Nazi death camps and recording accounts of atrocities committed in them. He anticipated there would be holocaust deniers and wanted enduring proof of Holocaust horrors.

Eisenhower couldn’t make the hate speech of antisemitism disappear, but he was committed to nullifying it by preserving the evidence of its evil. That’s an ambition each of us, regardless of our ideological, political or religious views, should aspire to follow.

We enjoy the right of free speech. Now it’s time to exercise that right in defense of truth and humanity.

Gary Conkling has been involved in Oregon politics for more than 50 years as a reporter and editor, congressional staffer and public affairs professional.