The power of the written word

I read a thought-provoking blogpost from Charissa (here: The Written Word) and thought I'd post a short reply.

Without a doubt, the written word has great power—the power to influence. But moreso, the power to move Man to action. Mere influence in terms of "changing one's mind" does not count for much, realistically. For example, if asked to fill in a survey, many people would "strongly believe" that fruits and vegetables are good for their health. How many, would you wager, really get enough of fruits and veggies in their daily diet? Without delving too deep into the (not-so-true) beliefs-values-actions-destiny idea, I think we have more than enough day-to-day experiences that will prove to us that we don't always do what we believe in. And that may not always be a bad thing.

So the real issue arises when people take words too seriously and are incited to act in some profound way. I believe this is the crux of censorship: don't let people with crazy ideas voice them, or other people might catch this crazy ideas actually start to enact them; then we'll be in trouble. Consequently, all ideas have to potential to cause great social change are often the ones that are the most scrutinized, and cut: religion, politics, race, gender, and, not forgetting, sexuality. Is it any mystery why most are visceral notions?

In light of this, what merit then, is there to free speech? Who deems what's crazy and what's not. Is an anti-religious Danish cartoon more of a dangerous idea than legalizing homosexual marriage?

Often, we forget that the idea of free speech stems from a grander scheme, that all men (and women) may decide, as much as possible, how to live their own lives. Free speech is but a part of that dream. Only by being allowed to communicate the reasons for our lifestyle can we understand one another, and appreciate that though we are all very, very different, we can all share a common living space. It then becomes clear who should do the deciding. No doubt, there are problems associated with this as well, but I'll explain in a moment why having absolutely free speech—no restrictions at all—makes for a better long term approach.

The key to such unrestricted free speech lies in a God-given (or for the secularists: state/nature/society-given) right to ignore or respond negatively to stupid ideas. Danish cartoon insulting Prophet Muhammad: stupid, racially inflammatory idea; everyone including Muslim leaders lambast it; Muslims around the world ignore the irresponsible bunch of people who do it... Everyone's happy. Okay, not really, but closer to it than angry mobs burning flags, cursing the west, and George Bush listing another Middle East state as part of his "axis of evil" that must be "harshly and severely dealt with".

"Free speech" should be as it's called: free. Why should it be watered down by censors and snipped into palatable bits that don't offend anyone's sensibilities. Free speech should offend, and, if I may add, with a vengeance. That's the only way society will learn—and grow—by ignoring free speech which is simply for offense's sake. Only if society matures through this way will people begin to "use free speech responsibly" by providing real evidence and rational arguments for their ideas.

In the long run, this is more profitable for society than having a bunch of biased and elect group of editors from media conglomerates deciding which ideas go to print. Can we expect these gatekeepers to propagate ideas contrary to their beliefs, given that there is limited publishing space, and that we all believe our beliefs are true? What percentage of their countries' population does their beliefs represent? What percentage of the global one then?

Would it be unfair to say that the bulk of the "responsible" speech going to the masses so regularly might not be a product of true social consciousness but empty rules that will break down when dilemmas arise?

In closing, I'd like to touch a little on the 2006 annual question from The Edge. The Edge is an organization devoted to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society.

WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA? The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?

The contributors voiced their dangerous ideas (many extremely polarizing ones too). Someone printed and published them. But no one's strapped a bomb to himself or campaigned that reality is made up of 7 dimensions and little strings. And no one got hurt. Wonder why?