
posted 13th January 2025

Free speech looks simple. Everyone should be allowed to say whatever they like. If people tell lies, they will be challenged, and eventually the truth will emerge.
In fact it is more complicated than that. There are at least two kinds of free speech. The Ancient Greeks - who, famously, invented democracy - had a couple of words for them.
The first is parrhesia, which means freedom of speech: the right to say what you think regardless of whether or not it offends someone. The second is isegoria, which means equal access to speech: the right for everyone to be heard, for no one to be excluded. They are similar, but they are not the same.
Both these ideas are connected to what we think of as free speech, but can also be in tension.
If you focus more on parrhesia, you open the door to a wider range of ideas, and guarantee a more lively discussion, but at the risk of favouring those who make the most noise over those who are quieter or more marginalised and vulnerable.
If you focus more on isegoria, you ensure that everyone will be heard, but at the risk of potentially restricting access for some louder voices in the interests of protecting the voices of the less powerful.
You might say that parrhesia guarantees freedom to speak, while isegoria guarantees freedom from being silenced. This is a subtle distinction but an important one.
How might we apply these principles to how we think about free speech? Let's take a recent (January 2025) example. Elon Musk, the owner of X, has been sending hundreds of tweets attacking the British government. Some of these tweets contain false information. Some of them use abusive language, including misogynistic attacks on a female minister, Jess Philips. Should he be allowed to do this?
For supporters of parrhesia, the answer is yes. Respond to Mr Musk's lies and abuse by providing correct information. Let truth drive out lies. You may not like what he is saying, but once you start censoring him, you set a very dangerous precedent. Future governments may be empowered to shut down people who attack them.
In the 1930s, Osip Mandlestam, a Russian poet, used abusive language about the communist dictator Stalin, when he compared Stalin's moustache to a cockroach. For this exercise of free speech, he was sent to a labour camp in Siberia. Is that the sort of world we want to live in?
Supporters of isegoria point out that free speech is not a level playing field. Social media is awash with people saying abusive things about the government, but they can be mostly ignored. Elon Musk gets a huge amount of attention because he is the world's richest person (person, not man; it's not like there are dozens of women richer than him), and is close to Donald Trump. He also owns X, so he can manipulate how his tweets are shared, ensuring they are seen by more people. He has a huge amount of power.
The victims of his abuse do not have as much power as him. They may be intimidated into silence by fear of further abuse. Ms Philips has said his tweets have endangered her personal safety, as they may encourage physical attacks on her. She is not alone; many female politicians have reported feeling reluctant to speak out on controversial issues for fear of the abuse on social media that will follow, and the danger this may put them in.
So giving Elon Musk freedom to say what he likes prevents other people from saying what they like. Some restrictions on free speech, such as forcing social media companies to remove abusive and false content, may actually make speech more free, as it will allow more people to express their opinions in safety.
Free speech is not as simple as it looks. The concepts of parrhesia and isegoria can help us to understand the issues when debating free speech.
Motions that go with this topic
1. This house would oblige social media companies to remove false and abusive content from their sites.
2. This house favours unlimited free speech.
3. This house would not allow any individual to own more than 50% of any media outlet.
4. This house would ban anonymous accounts on social media.
5. This house would ban foreign ownership of British newspapers.