With the imminent explosion of Steem, communication has now become truly all-pervasive.
Just about everybody uses the Internet these days, from your grandma to eight-year-old Timothy. We may have different reasons for logging on, but everyone has something to gain from the endless pit of information on the web today.
However, not everybody thinks that information on the web should be universally available. Nowadays, people seem to think that freedom of speech is OK — sure — as long it doesn't offend anybody.
"The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech."
Those were the dangerous words last month of Vera Jourová, the European Union's Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, as she unveiled a new code to tackle illegal online "hate speech".
Social media giants Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Microsoft have all lined up behind the European Union to help wipe the Internet clean of this influx of so-called "hate speech".
But what is this "hate speech" they are so afraid of — and why?
In short, hate speech is speech that offends, threatens or insults groups based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other traits. So they want hate speech to be outlawed; sounds like a good idea, right? No.
It might seem like a good idea at face value, until you realise that it then becomes a question of who gets to decide what is and what isn't hate speech.
The policing of speech is dangerous.
Freedom of expression matters because it allows society to voice and listen to unpopular opinions, and it allows the truth to always surface and prevail.
Most people in liberal western democracies think of freedom of speech as a basic human right, and rightfully so. Freedom of speech is the ability to express yourself, and many have died defending the right.
The claim that hate speech doesn't qualify as free speech is one that echoes the rallying cry of today's agitators for more controls on what they view as evil words.
The beautiful thing, however, of freedom of speech is that it enables morons to unwittingly expose themselves. Believe it or not, the PC elite don't really care about standing up for minorities. What they do care about is furthering their own totalitarian agenda, and they achieve this under the pretence of standing up for minorities because it makes the idea seem well-intentioned on the surface. Plus, it fools uneducated people into supporting them.
A generation is currently being raised not to believe in freedom of speech, but rather that they should have freedom from speech. The difference is uncanny.
This may sound like conspiracy theorist nonsense, but let me explain: The elite are actively trying to dismantle freedom of speech.
In a world where people could be fined or imprisoned for "hate speech", those in power could silence anybody they don't like by simply accusing them of being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This potentional to abuse power is what people are concerned about.
It has nothing to do with people wanting to be able to call other people "n****rs" or "f****ts", but everything to do with not wanting to be silenced by the mere accusation of bigotry.
Anybody could claim to find something "offensive" or "triggering" to get the authorities to step in and shut down whoever they want.
As a matter of fact, this system of silencing differing opinions has already begun to exist on college campuses, and the power has already gone to peoples' heads. Despite the United States' strong Bill of Rights, there is still an ever-rising trend of speech suppression, or what is sometimes referred to as "political correctness". This is especially true in America's universities and colleges: the place where our future leaders are educated, and the one place where you should expect speech to be the most free.
We're constantly hearing about student groups creating "safe spaces" where certain people aren't allowed to go, and where the protected class are sheltered from the harmful opinions or arguments from people they disagree with.
Highly restrictive speech codes are now the norm on campus, not the exception.
In the mind of these deluded warriors, hate speech may look a little something like this if visualised next to free speech. Introduce "safe spaces", squelch hate speech, and that's OK — you've still got most of your free speech, right?
Wrong. Under the pretence of defending their disadvantage, the people who push for "hate speech" policing are creating an environment where they can decide on a whim to remove people, as well as harbouring an environment where those who don't share the right opinions are afraid to speak out.
When people resort to force to prevent opinions that they take issue with, they are undermining the very principles of freedom and tolerance that they claim to defend.
Many seem to forget: nobody is saying you have to like offensive speech. In fact, you should be encouraged to denounce and condemn speech that you think is invalid or wrong. When society allows the free expression of unpleasant opinion, it gives us the ability to publicly refute them.
Even people with bad ideas should be allowed to speak because its important that bad ideas get exposure. In the open marketplace of ideas, bad ideas will always die out, even if it takes a long time.
They want to dispose of freedom of speech so they can silence anybody by simply labelling them. In turn, they want to give themselves a monopoly on civil rights discourse, which will enable them to push any agenda they want — free of criticism. Just imagine what could happen if these people had their way.
We're not falling for it.
Anyone who is pro-censorship secretly knows that their ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny. That's why they create "safe spaces" where they don't have to hear dissenting opinions.
The fact is that intellectual comfort is not a right, nor should it ever be. That is, not if we want free speech (let's just call it freedom) to survive.