This article is based on this Dutch article of Martijn Benders
In today’s society, where freedom of speech should be a fundamental pillar, it’s disturbing to notice voices challenging this freedom. One such voice is Marcia Luyten, a participant in mainstream media, who displays a shocking lack of understanding of this essential concept. Luyten, affiliated with outlets like Volkskrant and Met het Oog op Morgen, seems to advocate for a government that controls and corrects our expressions for ‘factuality’. This idea is not only dangerous but downright absurd and aligns only with authoritarian ideologies.
The inherent suggestion that the government should have the right to suppress statements it deems not ‘factual’ shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the state in a democratic society. In a healthy democracy, the state is supposed to protect free debate, especially when that debate involves opinions that are controversial or uncomfortable. The strength of a democracy lies in its citizens’ ability to freely discuss, criticize, and, if necessary, challenge existing views.
Luyten’s plea for government interference extends even further. She argues that the state should also tackle ‘fake news’, ‘deepfakes’, and conspiracy theories. While the problem of misleading information should certainly not be underestimated, it is naïve to think that the government, with all its bureaucratic inefficiencies and inherent interests, is the right party to act as an arbiter of truth. History teaches us that when governments start regulating truth, the line between protection and oppression quickly blurs.
It is therefore not surprising that the government spends an exorbitant amount of 16 billion more on the civil service this year. A government expanding its responsibilities to the role of ‘Thought Police’, wishing to control not only public spaces but also private ones, such as social media and personal conversations, creates a state where freedom becomes subordinate to conformity.
This brings us to the core of the issue: how did it happen that such dangerous ideas, which stand in stark contrast to the principles of freedom and self-determination, have become mainstream? The answer perhaps lies in the increasing polarization and fear of the unknown. In a world that is growing ever more complex and unpredictable, people seek certainty. And for some, that certainty seems to lie in a strong government that protects us from unwelcome ideas. But this is a false sense of security because once we give the government the power to control our thoughts, we also give up our freedom.
Freedom of speech is not a luxury, nor a privilege bestowed by the government upon its citizens. It is a fundamental right, anchored in the belief that every person has the ability and responsibility to think for themselves, to draw their own conclusions, and to share these freely with others. When this freedom is curtailed, when the government arrogates the right to decide what can and cannot be said, we find ourselves on a dangerous slippery slope towards dictatorship.
The ideas of people like Marcia Luyten are not only misleading; they pose a direct threat to the core values of our society. It is therefore crucial that we remain vigilant, critically assess these ideas, and continue to defend freedom of speech as the inviolable right that it is.
No, the government absolutely should not have the right to monitor and censor your phone conversations or letters. This fundamental principle of privacy applies equally to our interactions on social media. The proposals to extend government control to these digital spaces are not only undemocratic; they also reflect a primitive and shortsighted mindset that fails to grasp the values supporting a free society.
The idea that the government should intervene in private conversations between friends on social media is downright absurd and dangerous. It would reduce a free democracy to a state of permanent surveillance, comparable to a totalitarian regime like North Korea. In such a society, one would always have to be cautious even in the most informal conversations, constantly fearing that a dissenting opinion could get you into trouble.
The freedom to speak and communicate without government intervention is a cornerstone of a free society. Without this freedom, our democracy loses its vitality and becomes merely a façade of participation, where citizens no longer dare to think or speak out of fear of repercussions.
Only by adhering to the principles of freedom and privacy can we prevent our democracy from sliding into a state of repression and control.
Because no distinction is ever made in the type of social media—people act as if a public statement and a statement made in a group of friends have exactly the same legal status—this conceptual blurring also blurs our freedoms. From a government that listens to a government that actively intervenes, all with crumbling education and a degenerative overall intelligence, a true doom scenario for all intelligentsia. You are not only being listened to, you are being listened to by someone too dumb to understand your words, but who has the power to silence you. This future perspective is too close for comfort, unfortunately, as it might have already become reality during the coronavirus.
Martijn Benders, 29-08-2024