Freedom of speech

In my book Tidlös utbildning: en introduktion (2016), I defended freedom of speech as one of the best signs of a healthy society and that "the more restrictions that are introduced the more the society deviates from wisdom" (page 140). Since then, however, I have come across two arguments against total freedom of speech that made me want to reflect on whether I may have formulated a flawed argument for the freedom of speech.

The first counter-argument or flaw in the freedom of speech is that not everyone has the same prerequisites for reaching out with their message, need, or opinion. Social groups that are in the majority and people with the largest technological platforms will persuade and mesmerize others; not through the best arguments but mainly by "screaming the loudest" and being the most visible. Thus the belief that the "marketplace of ideas" will let the best arguments win through their own merit has forgotten to take this into account.

The other counter-argument is that freedom of expression also leads to a lack of restriction or filter being placed on advertising, gossip, spam, frivolity, scams, rumors, and poorly informed opinions that in many cases run the risk of drowning out more useful, healthy and essential information.

Since I agree with these flaws in freedom of speech, I felt compelled to go back and read what I wrote in my own assessment of freedom of speech in the book. I was wondering if I might have reached an erroneous conclusion or not used the timeless parameters correctly.

Fortunately, what I wrote is something I still largely stand behind. My main point in the evaluation was that freedom of speech does not work without Timeless Education with its practice of non-identification and development. I could definitely have gone into more detail on the subject, but the text is not at all as flawed as I feared it would be. On the contrary, I do not defend freedom of speech as much as I point out that it needs a complement in the form of the right education and a wisdom-compass, otherwise people cannot handle such an ideal. Translated quote from the book:

"Freedom of speech also involves a responsibility to be able to take counter-reactions, otherwise there is always the choice to keep quiet. No one can expect [there to be] accepting people who can take responsibility for either freedom of speech or anything else until they have done the work required to develop themselves."

One question that is still relevant, however, is how the right teaching and information, whether we talk about Timeless Education or something similar, can reach people if it is not conveyed by the largest platforms or if it drowns in a sea of trivial, banal and misleading information? In a way, the whole book is about this problem, especially the first two chapters, so there was no need to repeat this. That too much information and opinions are a problem for wisdom is definitely not something I forgot to pay attention to or ponder. That people with the most influence have more power in terms of information is also related to this, and pretty obvious, even though I did not mention this directly.

It was for this very reason that I chose to express a warning in the text, where I stated that crimes against the understanding of timeless truth through prohibition, neglect or distortion of Timeless Education will not be forgiven (by reality). Nothing works without it. Not politics, not religion, not school, not rule of law, not revolution, and not freedom of speech. And to make sure that Timeless Education gets the space it needs for a healthier world with healthier people, I would actually prioritize it over total freedom of speech. This does not pose that much of a risk for what is most essential in freedom of speech, since freedom of speech is largely included in Timeless Education. But the necessary respect needed for the principles of Ultimate Reality in a healthy society may require a limiting or questioning of freedom of speech in its current form. But if we are to apply any kind of restriction and punishment, it must be constructive and reasonable. Banning calls for violence is already a reasonable limitation.

How to reach people with wisdom has always been a challenge. If you come on too strongly, wisdom easily becomes fanatical religion with oppression of opinions, and if you create a mystique around wisdom to make it attractive by hiding it in monasteries or secret societies, it easily becomes elitist or crushed by other ideals that become totalitarian in its place.

True freedom of speech belongs to a higher state. The majority of people do not really want freedom of speech. Ordinary people are biased, passionate and prone to group pressure. And at the same time freedom of speech is something attractive that can support the demands and desires of individuals or groups until these are reached and then inevitably limits the same freedom of speech with precisely these demands and desires. Such is the result of freedom of speech without timeless wisdom.

But if we already consider freedom of speech to be an ideal in our Western culture, then the answer to how we should get people to notice Timeless Education lies precisely in pointing out that our current ideal of freedom of speech needs this kind of wisdom as a complement in order to function and be realistic. Saying that true freedom of speech needs Timeless Education, or wisdom, otherwise it is impossible, could provide us with an effective rhetoric that is easy to remember and at the same time can generate interest in Timeless Education.