Expensive speech...
I was reading a book a while back and one character takes a tangent to rail against a specific concept of free speech. At first I was startled by the violence of the character's opinion, but as I read their argument I saw that they were not talking about a definition of the term devoid of context, but the actionable meaning of the word in a series of very specific contexts.
I was used to that phrase meaning an abstract idea meaning general freedom from government interference with criticism from the populace, but... I already know that that description doesn't reflect reality. I'd been thinking about free speech being as expensive as all other free things: You can do what you like, but you don't get to whine about the consequences.
This character talking about a very specific definition of “free speech” that does real harm to people, groups of people, and the relationships between groups of people.
This all shook my brain up like a snow globe, but then I started seeing exactly what they were talking about all over the place. People using the cover of an abstract and unrealistically defined term indoctrinated into them as children, and making it into a weapon against others. I suspect that they are following the example that the government sets when they use the term and pretend it means something other than what they do with it.
We end up with a whole bunch of people who have never checked in on their indoctrination to see if what they've been told is an absolute right for them is maybe more like a nursery rhyme that soothes enough to keep them quiet.
I've noticed that people describe some instances as “free speech” instances. The first time I read I knew exactly what it meant. I knew that those were the people who specifically want to say harmful and counter-factual things to each other and egg each other on until someone does something violent and hurts someone outside their core group to help the group bond together more tightly around the struggle against the outsiders.
I maybe told a lie earlier on there. I read that part of the book and I was startled, but I was also really focused on finding out what happened in the story. I didn't really stop and challenge my indoctrination when I read that part of the book. I did really stop and challenge myself when I read another reader's rant about that part of the book. Their rant was based on the idea that this character in this world saying these things made no sense whatsoever.
That surprised me and made me revisit the scene. I found the character's argument to be really clear and to make a lot of sense in the framework as they presented in and in relation to the history of the world they described from their perspective and education.
I returned to the review and eventually decided that the reviewer's concept of “free speech” was held entirely apart from the concept as it was described in the book. That dissonance made me feel emotionally upset. I felt gratitude for that reviewer and her willingness to vent about the topic because I might not have noticed it otherwise. I'm also a great fan of venting about things that annoy me and learning things when one of my friends smacks me with correction and education. That's what friends are for.
I'm curious to find out what other simple beliefs and definitions have been learned by me and will someday be challenged by some author or reviewer who is willing to speak the expensive speech of challenge and questioning.