The freedom of speech has its flavors

One of my most decided efforts to learn implies never (or almost) to be so absorbed as to miss whatever is happening around me, because if I shut my eyes and ears I might be missing on a learning opportunity. This means indubitably, that a small fraction of my attention will be on my surroundings and not on the task at hand, but as long as the fraction is small, I do not see a big problem with it, and on the other hand I can set wonderful lessons, as was the case today at lunch.

In this case it was Karen the one who brought an interesting debate to the table: in Ancient Greece there were two different (and even competing) concepts for the freedom of speech: the first one was called isegoria and refers to the equal right of all citizens to address the assembly; the second one was called parrhesia and essentially means speaking without restraint, in whatever fashion the speaker finds suitable. Piqued by the subtle difference I decided to research the terms further and found, to my great delight, this extremely informative article in The Atlantic, which, even if it is already four years old and revolves around the debate for safe spaces in universities, provide a through historic background to put these two terms in context.

Photo: Rasande Tyskar

One important difference between them is that, while the former one is considered as a right, and should therefore be protected by the state, the second one can be considered more like a license, a temporary permit that has to be requested or agreed upon in each situation. I have to admit I have never been in the military, but from the movies I can surmise that parrhesia is equivalent to asking you commanding officer for permission to speak openly: the officer is made aware that you have something to say that they might not be pleased to hear but if they allow it (and this is the key aspect here) they waive away any possibility of retaliation for your opinion. In a sense, one term is related to the access to the audience, while the other is related to the form of the speech.

The conflict between these two ideas is clear: given that the time and the attention of the audience is limited, making an expansive use of right to speak in the way you want (e.g. by speaking too long) would effectively deny others their right to speak at all. Similarly, uttering menacing speeches can intimidate others to the point that they choose to give up on their right to be heard.

Surprisingly, the need for open speech has been recognized long ago. The incentives are generally aligned in such a way that most people choose not to provide unwelcome information or commentary to the powerful, lest they land in the dungeon or, even worse, in the gallows. However, this can result in the informational isolation of the decision makers, who can live in a complete delusion forged by the people who surround them for fear of being punished. That is why a few selected people where granted parrhesia, so that they could speak openly without fear of retaliation, such us jesters and  playwrights. The implicit "contract" with them is that the audience agreed to listen to whatever the speaker wanted to say and had no right to feel offended by what they heard.

Some months ago I was reviewing the philosophy of Indian thinker and revolutionary Gandhi and I ran into his concept that rights emanate from the duties well performed, that they are not automatic but instead have to be "earned" by performing the duties that you are assigned, and the diligence in each duty will have different impact on your rights: if you fail in your duty of respecting somebody else's life by hurting or killing them, your right to live or to freely move around might be curtailed by execution or imprisonment. In fact, as Ms. Bejan points out in her article in The Atlantic, Greeks also lost their right to speak if they conducted themselves improperly (like by taking bribes or engage in prostitution).

One interesting aspect of Gandhi's philosophy is the idea of responsibility in the exercise of your rights, a basic sense of regard for the others called sadbhavna. Although the term can be interpreted as nationalistic and reductive, it is also used to refer to taking into consideration the effect of our actions in the rest of the community. In that sense it is important to realize that not everything that is legal is also moral. If we consider property rights, a person of means has in principle the right to buy a vacant lot. However, if they leverage their wealth to over-stretch their right and begin to buy every vacant lot, then the community starts to suffer the consequences, either by uncontrolled development of said lots, by a scarcity of building space or many other possible ways.

I do not mean to have a solution to the debate of free speech here, I just intended to pose a question: parrhesia is, at least in our society, not boundless, and words can be weapons as sharp as knives in the adequate context. So unless you intend to harm yourself or someone else, it might sensible to consider what to do with your words, whether it helpful or even necessary to use them in that way, and considering the harm you can do to others. Because, in the end, the statistics (or karma) are a bitch and if you insist on intentionally hurting people around you, you will eventually run into someone who has the will and the power to teach you a painful lesson. Have a nice evening.