Challenging the “Free Speech Has Consequences” Slogan

In recent years, as social media, advertisers, and governments have become more censorial, the enemies of free speech on the left of the political spectrum have trotted out the slogan: free speech has consequences. They make free speech sound like sexual intercourse outside of marriage or driving an automobile without a seatbelt.

Everything in life has consequences—some good, some bad. But until recently, free speech was highly valued as a necessary right for people to be able to express themselves, ask questions, and challenge the status quo. Without freedom of inquiry, the pursuit of knowledge will come to a standstill.

One tried and true method of ascertaining the truth of an argument is to analyze for logical fallacies. The study of logic has been a skill that has helped me throughout my life.

So let’s investigate this new slogan and see how many potential logical fallacies might surface.

The assertion that “free speech has consequences” attempts to balance the rights associated with free expression with the outcomes that may arise from exercising those rights. However, when this phrase is used to imply predominantly negative consequences, several logical inconsistencies and fallacies become evident, undermining its effectiveness as a rational argument.

Logical Fallacies in the Phrase “Free Speech Has Consequences”

1. Equivocation Fallacy:
   • Explanation: The phrase “consequences” is inherently ambiguous, leading to an equivocation fallacy. Without a clear definition, “consequences” can range from minor social criticism to severe, life-altering repercussions, including legal actions. By conflating different levels of consequences, the argument muddles the distinction between appropriate responses and disproportionate punishment, obscuring whether the reaction aligns with the nature of the speech.
   • Example: When someone equates casual disapproval with losing one’s career over a controversial opinion, they are engaging in equivocation, failing to address whether the severity of the consequence is justified.
2. Slippery Slope Fallacy:
   • Explanation: The phrase may introduce a slippery slope by suggesting that any form of consequence is a natural and inevitable outcome of free speech, which can lead to increasingly harsh penalties for even minor infractions. This fallacy assumes a direct and unbroken progression from the exercise of speech to extreme consequences, without accounting for societal mechanisms that can moderate or prevent such outcomes.
   • Example: If it is argued that allowing a certain opinion to be expressed will inevitably lead to severe social or legal penalties, this assumes a linear escalation that discounts the possibility of proportionate or tempered responses.
3. Appeal to Consequences Fallacy:
   • Explanation: The appeal to consequences fallacy occurs when the argument that free speech should be restricted is based solely on the undesirable outcomes that might result. This reasoning overlooks the fundamental principle that the validity of free speech does not depend on the popularity or acceptance of its outcomes but rather on the intrinsic right to express one’s views.
   • Example: Arguing that a particular type of speech should be silenced because it could lead to social unrest employs an appeal to consequences, focusing on potential negative effects rather than addressing the inherent right to free expression.
4. False Dichotomy:
   • Explanation: The phrase “free speech has consequences” often implies a false dichotomy, presenting a choice between absolute freedom of speech without repercussions and severe punitive measures. This oversimplification ignores the broad spectrum of possible responses, from constructive dialogue to unwarranted suppression, reducing a complex issue to two extremes.
   • Example: Suggesting that one must either accept all consequences, no matter how severe, or advocate for complete immunity from any response creates a false dichotomy, neglecting the varied and complex ways society can respond to speech.
5. Begging the Question:
   • Explanation: The phrase can also engage in the fallacy of begging the question by assuming from the outset that all consequences of free speech are inherently justified. This circular reasoning bypasses the necessary analysis of whether the consequences are fair or appropriate, taking for granted that any reaction to speech is deserved without critically examining the context or proportionality of the response.
   • Example: If it is assumed that someone who faces extreme social backlash for their speech must have deserved it, the argument begs the question by presupposing the justice of the consequence without assessing the fairness of the outcome in context.

Most people who use this phrase are not operating in good faith. When the slogan “free speech has consequences” is used with an emphasis on negative outcomes, it reveals several logical issues that merit scrutiny:

1. Appeal to Fear (Ad Baculum):
   • Explanation: When the phrase is employed to deter individuals from exercising their right to free speech by emphasizing the risk of negative consequences, it functions as an appeal to fear. This logical fallacy arises when fear is invoked as a means to persuade, rather than relying on reason or evidence.
   • Example: If someone asserts, “You shouldn’t say that because free speech has consequences,” with the underlying suggestion that severe backlash will follow, this could be construed as an attempt to silence dissent through intimidation, rather than engaging with the content of the speech.
2. Implicit Threat:
   • Explanation: The phrase, when implying negative outcomes, can serve as an implicit threat rather than a neutral observation. It suggests that such consequences are justified or deserved, potentially intimidating individuals and discouraging them from expressing dissenting or unpopular opinions.
   • Example: When used in a manner that implies, “If you say that, you’ll suffer for it,” the phrase may act as a deterrent to free expression, even when the speech in question is legitimate or protected under free speech principles.
3. Straw Man Fallacy:
   • Explanation: The phrase may be employed to oversimplify or misrepresent the position of those who advocate for free speech. By suggesting that free speech advocates believe there should be no consequences whatsoever, it sets up a straw man—a distorted version of the actual argument—making it easier to attack.
   • Example: If someone argues that free speech advocates are seeking absolute immunity from any reaction, they are likely attacking a misrepresentation, rather than addressing the more nuanced argument that severe or violent consequences may be unjust.
4. Moral Equivalence:
   • Explanation: The phrase might be used to draw a false moral equivalence between different kinds of “consequences.” Not all consequences carry the same moral or legal weight, and using the phrase in an indiscriminate manner can obscure the distinctions between justified social pushback and excessive or unjust punishment.
   • Example: Equating social disapproval with job loss, harassment, or legal repercussions fails to recognize the significant differences in the moral and legal implications of these outcomes.
5. Red Herring:
   • Explanation: Focusing on the consequences rather than the substance of the speech can serve as a red herring, diverting attention away from the actual argument. This fallacy occurs when irrelevant issues are introduced to distract from the core content or validity of the speech.
   • Example: If the conversation shifts from evaluating the speech itself to discussing the potential negative outcomes of expressing it, the focus is diverted, potentially leading away from a meaningful examination of the speech’s content.

Conclusion

The oft-repeated assertion that “free speech has consequences” is laden with potential logical fallacies when used to imply negative outcomes as a natural and justified response to all forms of speech. This phrase, without careful definition and contextualization, risks oversimplifying a complex issue and can lead to unjustified censorship or disproportionate retribution against individuals exercising their fundamental rights.

From now on, whenever you see or hear the phrase “free speech has consequences,” casually used to cast shade upon free speech, you’ll know how to debunk it.

–Wolfshead