In the contemporary world, freedom of speech is becoming increasingly complex and multifaceted. Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, faces twenty years in jail in France, a stark example of how the principles of free speech can clash with legal and political frameworks.
Telegram, a cloud-based, cross-platform social media and instant messaging service is known for its full encryption of messages, making it impossible for an external entity to access them. This raises significant questions about the balance between privacy and public safety, particularly in a world where communication can easily cross borders and legal jurisdictions.
On the other hand, Elon Musk advocates for a full commitment to freedom of speech, demonstrating how different leaders approach this fundamental right. But what is freedom of speech? Unlike other beings on this planet, do we not have the freedom to speak? Are we conditioned somehow? These questions are not just philosophical; they have real-world implications.
As I grew up in Romania, I experienced repression regarding my expressive manifestations from those who had authority over me, whether they were family, teachers, or bosses. They were also the “bad boys” that I encountered, who used force to suppress me. I knew my ideas were not harmful, so why would those people repress a harmless intention?
The reason was that they felt in danger of seeing themselves as they were through my insights. Few people act consciously when confronted by someone who can perceive the truth; everyone else reacts unconsciously. My father felt in danger because I witnessed him drunk, dangerous, and violent. I could have put him in jail with a good lawyer, but I never thought of it, nor could I afford it. My teachers were mostly concerned with containing the problems in school and keeping their immaculate appearance for the upper authority. In some places I worked, illegalities were a habit.
As for the “bad boys” that I encountered, it seems to me that I always attracted their attention for the simple reason that I would avoid them. I was beaten, humiliated, and cursed in schools, on the streets, and in the village, without having a fair chance to express my observations or insights.
Freedom of speech can only be absolute when the population in that area has a fundamental understanding of the phenomenon and implications of language; otherwise, it must be conditioned to avoid negative consequences.
In a respected courtroom, the rapist doesn’t have the right to sit while the victim pleads her story. On social media, there is a block button. This reflects the necessity for some boundaries to ensure that free speech does not lead to harm. In life beyond social media and the courtroom, danger can await anywhere—people may be bullied, harmed, or killed for what they expressed online, as the reason may be hard to prove. What happens on the internet should stay on the internet.
In the digital age, platforms like Telegram and social media, in general, can be compared to a shipping company that never checks its packages, leading to potential dangers that are only addressed after significant harm has occurred. If the package contains illegal products that are harmful, they have to take responsibility for delivering them. In the case of Telegram, which is Russian-based, the illegalities are ultimate since that country is the only one left in the world that seeks to conquer other nations.
Yet, it is strange that Elon Musk, who had great success landing rockets, cannot understand what he encourages. U.S. democracy has evolved, unlike the Russian version, where the votes are counted by those who win.
Freedom of speech was never a problem. Slaves could have spoken, and then been killed. So, it is not the speaking that is the problem, but the consequences of it. Those consequences are applied by the people in power. In the case of a social media platform, the consequences for self-expression are the CEO’s responsibility.
But what if that person refuses to give any information regarding what happens on the platform? If a ton of cocaine is found in a container, shouldn’t the shipping company also pay a fair share for it? If they do not offer any information regarding the suspicious activities they encounter, they should be held accountable.
Absolute freedom of expression can be allowed on social media with certain conditions. I am not a specialist, but I can offer an objective reflection on it:
“The platforms must offer access to any government authority in which that platform operates legally if they provide evidence of potential illegalities.”
“Every press member must have access to the information to which the government requires access and is used to incriminate someone.”
“Every citizen has the responsibility to check the truthfulness of the information in the press before he distributes it further on his accounts.”
“The authorities must immediately delete any information that has no relevance to illegal activities.”
This way, the platform and the government have to collaborate and mediate with each other sincerely and let the public be the judge through the work of the press specialists. The present situation might seem similar to my description, except it is not fundamentally structured, due to the incipient phase of the phenomenon of social media on a global scale. The conditions can be expanded into more refined rules but must have a worldwide fundamental aspect, regardless of the countries that allow the platform.
A hidden chat group is the online representation of a closed room where people can gather to talk about something the world must not know. If it were the idea of creating something for humanity, I could understand the secrecy, but if it is the systematic overthrow of something already created, is it not dangerous?
The room can now fit an unlimited number of people. If a crime happens in a small town, everyone knows who did it, but if it happens in a big neighborhood, it becomes harder, as the authorities have to interrogate and investigate thoroughly. If a crime happens through an online process, encrypted, who can check? Who can know?
This information turns into knowledge when it reaches the human mind. That knowledge touches a person’s emotions, and insights can arise. The quality of that insight is conditioned by the understanding of that person regarding the concepts and phenomena presented in that communication. The microphone, television, and social media have the same fundamentals: communicating information. Those three inventions were, are, and will be used to share valuable information with people or manipulate them.
Next in the communication evolution will be brain-to-brain interaction, where we will express our perceptions, thoughts, and emotions through a simple noninvasive device. At that moment, one can either totally manifest his inner experiences for someone else or share them. If someone tries to manipulate others using this technology, it will only be apparent to the recipient if they have a fundamental understanding of the connection between their perceptions, thoughts, and emotions. If not, the manipulation could lead to total control over that person’s manifestation, and if an AI is responsible for it, mass manipulation can happen at one person’s will.
Free speech should be universal only when all people understand how language influences our behavior unconsciously. People can be easily manipulated if someone with evil intentions understands their behavior. This has happened since language was developed.
Manipulation and intimidation in Europe vary greatly, with countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark having the best schooling systems that teach children how to research a subject before manifesting an action that can influence others.
In Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Ukraine, Hungary, and others, manipulation spreads nationally, and intimidation is common behavior. Freedom of speech includes freedom to lie and never to be punished by the implications of the person spreading it. In Romania, most people read one book a year on average, which makes it impossible for them to understand the fundamentals of language, creating the best medium for mass manipulation.
Humanity’s understanding of manipulation and intimidation is below the minimum requirement for absolute freedom of speech. In Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark, which have the best schooling systems, manipulation and intimidation are well understood by the children, as they know how to research a subject before manifesting an action that can influence others.
If absolute freedom of expression is allowed, absolute conditions regarding any form of it must be accessible to everyone. Like blockchain technology, where theft is possible only from a personal mistake, and due to the encrypted connectivity between the transactions, everything can be followed, which offers accessible transparency of where the money is now and how it got there.
So it can be with speech. If we want absolute freedom to express ourselves, everyone must do so if their actionable intentions have implications for other humans. If someone has something to hide, he should not be free to hide it through social media. Everyone must have a way to express their explorations, reflections, and contemplations through any means they consider in terms of emotionality, thoughtfulness, and perception. The internet created the perfect medium for every bird to share its song, and along with this Pandora’s unboxing, we have worldwide manipulation with a single tweet.
The real challenge lies in balancing these freedoms with the responsibilities that come with them. As the world continues to evolve technologically, the implications of free speech will become even more complex, requiring thoughtful consideration of both individual rights and collective safety.
Humanity is young, yet we have seen the depths of the universe and the tiniest particles. We understand our soul and existence better, and there is more in between to be uncovered. As long as humans exist, they must speak freely until insincerity and lying become merely a memory.
