Censorship vs. Free Speech
Where did the idea of "Free Speech" come from?
The idea of censorship being bad used to have a lot of agreement. Those who were politically conservative did not believe in it because they were convinced the Constitution gave them the right to say what they pleased, as stated in the First Amendment, though they tended to soften what they said according to what was considered acceptable speech. Those who were liberal in thought hated the idea that there were any restrictions on free speech, resulting in “shock jocks” who would say things just to affront the public by going against what was generally considered acceptable speech and shock the masses with what they had to say. In either case, free speech was safe.
But where did the idea of free speech come from? If you recall our discussion of the Reformation and why many Protestants migrated to the Americas, it centered on the idea that the individual should be able to decide for themselves what Scripture said, what God was saying to them personally, and that no human government could tell them they were wrong about what either God or Scripture were saying because Scripture tells us we are to obey God, rather than man (Acts 5:29). Everyone was free to argue about what Scripture said, but ultimately no one had the right to prevent them from spreading what they believed was true (initial efforts by Calvin, Luther, and others notwithstanding).
The earliest European migrations to the Americas were faith-based and while they did have sponsorship from wealthy English businessmen who saw a possible profit, their personal motivations were not monetary but religious. That’s why the Pilgrims felt they had a right to break the contract with their sponsors when they were not delivered to the Virginias as the contract required. It resulted in the Mayflower Compact, the first recorded document of a people deciding on their own how to create a governing body for themselves. This was all the consequence of Reformation ideas, that man had the right to act as he saw fit in accordance with God’s guidance.
When the question of what to do about differing interpretations of Scripture came up, as was inevitable, they had to decide whether they would take the course of the Roman Catholic church and persecute differing ideas or allow individuals to speak and live their conscience. Roger Williams (1603-1683) broke off from the Massachusetts Bay colony over the idea that differences of opinion on religious matters were inevitable and that there should be freedom to express them, and he left to found Rhode Island. Thomas Hooker (1586-1647) also broke off from the Massachusetts Bay colony over differences in Biblical interpretation and founded Connecticut for the same reasons. In 1701, William Penn (Governor of the Province of Pennsylvania) issued the “Charter of Privileges to the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania and Territories.” Here is an excerpt from that Charter:
"That no Person or Persons, inhabiting in this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge One almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their conscientious Persuasion or Practice, not be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or super any Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion" (see Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library [link on right]).
As time passed and more people living in the Americas did not share a belief in God, they were allowed to continue unmolested to believe, live, and act on their own consciences, following the path set by William Penn, Thomas Hooker, and Roger Williams as long as they lived quietly in civil obedience (according to law). That has continued to this day.
Unfortunately, there is an attack on freedom of speech today due to “special circumstances.” True, we do have laws against yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or “Bomb!” on an airplane without there actually being one, because of the chaos that would ensue. Unfortunately, that isn’t what's happening in social media currently. Political speech is being attached and censored, which has never been within the tradition of our country, and then there’s Covid.
I understand there are a lot of differing opinions on the subject, but what concerns me is that not just the average Joe is being censored because he’s an idiot and doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but scientists with extremely impressive resumes, experience in both laboratory and field, and insight into what works and what doesn’t are being silenced because what they have to say differs from the accepted narrative. This not only goes against our traditions on free speech, it goes against how scientific thought is formed.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an interesting article on "Scientific Progress" that starts this way:
Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science. For example, the historian of science George Sarton argued that “the acquisition and systematization of positive knowledge are the only human activities which are truly cumulative and progressive,” and “progress has no definite and unquestionable meaning in other fields than the field of science” (Sarton 1936). However, the traditional cumulative view of scientific knowledge was effectively challenged by many philosophers of science in the 1960s and the 1970s, and thereby the notion of progress was also questioned in the field of science. Debates on the normative concept of progress are at the same time concerned with axiological questions about the aims and goals of science. The task of philosophical analysis is to consider alternative answers to the question: What is meant by progress in science? This conceptual question can then be complemented by the methodological question: How can we recognize progressive developments in science? Relative to a definition of progress and an account of its best indicators, one may then study the factual question: To what extent, and in which respects, is science progressive? (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Scientific Progress," Oct. 16, 2019 [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/, accessed 02-21-2021]).
I hope you noticed the dates of when science was questioned as being based on progress—the 1960s & 70s. That's when Postmodernism became big enough as a movement to begin to challenge everything with the idea that there is no absolute truth. Science became "what is generally agreed" rather than what was proven in the laboratory. If enough scientists agreed, then it must be so. However, as the text points out, for many years all Western scientists were convinced swans could only be white, until a black one was discovered when Australia was explored. Sometimes the agreed consensus is wrong. What scientists today don't know would fill more volumes than what they do know. That's because God created things and His ways are higher than ours as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Science previous to the Postmodern movement was someone postulating a theory, working in the laboratory to see if the theory works, and someone else postulating another theory to test in the laboratory to see if that works. Disagreement helped ensure that the truth would eventually win. Stifling contrary voices is what Pope Julius II did with Galileo when Galileo posited that the earth was not the center of the universe as Aristotle theorized. The Pope thought, "Who is this upstart to think he can have a better theory than Aristotle, the prince of philosophers?!?" So Julius II had Galileo’s books burned and attempted to prevent his ideas from spreading. Aristotle was widely agreed to be the expert, and he said the earth was the center of the universe.
The above happens to be the story all evolutionists bring up to paint creationists as "flat earthers" when creationists suggest evolution has not answered all the questions it assumes scientifically to be true. Unfortunately, this is also exactly what's happening at the moment in the scientific community in respect to Covid.
Someone in the scientific community convinced what they were saying was true used to say, "Bring it on! Let's compare data and see who's right!" But that's not what's happening. The real question is why?
As for those of us who are not scientists, we should never, and I repeat never, act out of fear. As it says in 2 Timothy 1:7, "for God gave us a spirit not of fear, but of power and love and self-control."
To demand that others give up their rights because we are afraid is not from God. That's not how God operates. It's not how science operates, and it's not within the tradition of free speech this country has enjoyed for over 300 years.
Just something to think about.
