Free speech in an interconnected world
History is littered with quotes from great names about the importance of free speech in a functioning democracy. “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear,” wrote author George Orwell. George Washington went even further, warning: “If freedom of speech is taken away, “we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” And, most famously of all, Voltaire is often credited with stating: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Nearly 250 years after the French philosopher’s death, the turbulent events at the US Capitol following the presidential election signalled a dramatic turning of the tables. In this instance, it was not the weak, impoverished or disenfranchised who were being silenced but President Donald Trump, who was at that point still the most powerful man in the world. And in an ironic sign of the times, this muzzling was ordered not by government but by new technology titans such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
The social media companies’ actions quickly generated accusations of double standards. Hadn’t Facebook in particular, long asserted that its ubiquitous website was a platform, not a publisher? What right did social media companies have to suspend the accounts of anyone, presidents included? Are we now living in a world where we’re free to say anything we like, as long as those in charge of the medium through which we message it do not disagree? As Winston Churchill once complained: “Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without it being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone else says anything, that is an outrage.”
Free speech cuts both ways. There are clearly some limits to what most democratic nations and societies will allow to be said. Some still forbid heretical religious views. Others allow truth to be the arbiter and hand the task of discerning it to courts, juries and judges. However unpalatable a statement might be, a post-war consensus in democracies holds that it is entitled to be aired, with the court of informed public opinion the correct place for it to be debated, and if necessary disarmed and discredited. Despite the incendiary nature of many of Trump’s tweets and Facebook posts, therefore, a greater concern is the way that unelected, free market capitalist corporations assumed the role of regulators of free speech in suppressing them.
As a major investor in telecoms infrastructure provider, this is very much an issue falling on my patch. WOM, my telecoms investment in Chile and Colombia, has built a vibrant and enterprising brand around the desire to innovate, be different and revolutionalize the telecommunications market. We are brave and honest and tell our customers that we want to talk to them and we also want to listen. More than a telecommunications company, WOM is a means to spread information, foment ideas and generate interest by word of mouth. We want to champion connectivity and its place in levelling up access for everyone. Why would we ever want to ban a law-abiding individual from free expression on any of our connections or platforms? It just doesn’t make sense.
There are challenges with this view of course. We believe in the democratic mandate, abide by all the laws of the territories we operate within and only ally ourselves with people and organisations who share our values. But we do not consider ourselves as a censor or arbiter and are deeply uncomfortable with the notion of taking sides on deeply partisan issues; whatever the national importance.
Without free discussion, we do not determine truth. After all, many people still believe Voltaire to be the author of that famous quote — despite the earliest evidence of it dating 128 years after his death. In these digital times, fast internet is increasingly the major access point to this information. WOM is delighted to be able to provide it.
As we establish the post-COVID-19 “new normal” and try to build back better, we would all do well to remember the words of another philosopher, John Stuart Mill. “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion,” he wrote, “mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Let’s focus on giving people a voice; not taking that away from them.
