Free Speech

[Carl Emerson]

The issue of Free Speech looms large in our world.

I am interested in what is the biblical support for Free Speech and invite discussion on this topic.

Thanks for your participation.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I don't think the Bible condones our modern market place of "anything goes" from lying politicians, radio shock jocks and abusive online trolls.

They're the result of modern Western democratic "Ideals", made worse by online anonymity. But God is not a democrat (or a Republican, Labor member, Liberal National fan etc.).

What it does call for is respectful and accurate language.

Colossians 4:6 ESV / 51 "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."

If we choose to ignore those instructions, we'll answer for it.

Matthew 12:36 ESV / 72 "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak..."

In this modern day and age I can see a lot of people fronting up to the judgement seat to be confronted with a "Please explain ...."

 

[Carl Emerson]

So the provision in the US constitution for 'free speech' was not in harmony with Scripture ?

 

[Hoping2]

The issue of Free Speech looms large in our world.
I am interested in what is the biblical support for Free Speech and invite discussion on this topic.
Thanks for your participation.

Without knowing your parameters of speech, it is hard to make a response.
Do you have any "for instances" ?
Biblically..."Cast not your pearls before swine."

 

[Hoping2]

So the provision in the US constitution for 'free speech' was not in harmony with Scripture ?

Free speech is not in harmony with the laws of the USA.
You will be prosecuted for yelling "FIRE" in a theater.
Perhaps "Know your audience" is an important first step before opening one's mouth ?

 

[WatchmanofGod]

The issue of Free Speech looms large in our world.

I am interested in what is the biblical support for Free Speech and invite discussion on this topic.

Thanks for your participation.F

Free will is free speech and it comes with consequences or blessings

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello Carl (@Carl Emerson), perhaps you will find this short article helpful in understanding some of the reasoning behind our free speech clause in Amendment #1. There are, nevertheless, official limitations to free speech for the public good, and many more that have been sought recently (via unofficial channels) that amount to nothing less than pure censorship (for the pressing of a particular political agenda).

First Amendment (to the US Constitution):​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

​

The Free Speech Clause went through several iterations before it was adopted as part of the First Amendment. James Madison drafted an initial version of the speech and press clauses that was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Madison’s draft provided: The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.1 The House of Representatives special committee rewrote Madison’s language to make the speech and press clauses read: The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.2 The Senate subsequently rewrote the speech and press clauses to read: That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.3 Later, the Senate combined the religion clauses and the speech and press clauses4 and the House and Senate agreed to final language in conference.​

​

There was relatively little debate over the speech and press clauses in the House, and there is no record of debate over the clauses in the Senate.5 During debate over the clauses, Madison warned against the dangers that would arise from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.6 The general statement of these simple principles, however, gave rise to controversy when applied to specific government actions.7​

​

The Sedition Act of 1798 sparked one such controversy that crystallized a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment.8 The law punished anyone who would write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . or to bring them . . . into contempt or disrepute.9 While Thomas Jefferson and Madison condemned the act as unconstitutional, the Adams Administration used it to prosecute its political opponents.10 Although the Supreme Court never ruled the Sedition Act unconstitutional prior to its expiration in 1801, the Court later recognized a broad consensus from the political and judicial branches that the act was unconstitutional.11​

​

The United States is not a theocracy, so there is no requirement for us to follow what the Bible says in all things (though I think that we would be far better off if we did).

--David

~https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-1/ALDE_00013537/

 

[Bob Crowley]

Free speech is in harmony with scripture provided it is "gracious". How often is that the case?

 

[Bob Crowley]

John described Christ as full of grace and truth. He was harsh to the Pharisees but He was truthful in his accusations, not like the grotesque garbage that often passes for free speech today.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The issue of Free Speech looms large in our world.

I am interested in what is the biblical support for Free Speech and invite discussion on this topic.

Thanks for your participation.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth tells us to beware of that which defiles a person. Everything must be done in love for one another.
Blessings

Matthew 15:11
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

 

[stevevw]

The issue of Free Speech looms large in our world.

I am interested in what is the biblical support for Free Speech and invite discussion on this topic.

Thanks for your participation.

Perhaps free speech relates to Christ being the way, truth and life. Representing the light in the darkness that reveals our hearts and the lies and false prophets that try to claim the truth.

I think much of the cancel culture is associated with Gods truth. Certainly the issues around sex, gender and race as well as relationships, marriage and family. But also human worth in that we are made in Gods image. We know this because free nations were built of these truths.

Our natural rights are based on the idea that we are above animals and are spiritual beings being made in Gods image. A higher worth than fallible human ideology and determinations. We recognised that this truth had to be independent of humans and in the hands of a worthy God because of the evilness we seen that humans could do to one another.

It is mainly these truths that are being cancelled which actually are not just Gods truth but truths we have lived and learnt are required to live together. We created human rights after the horrors of WW2. We declared no one not even the most powerful State can take these rights.

Part of those truths were our natural rights to life and the freedoms that naturally come with this. The right to belief and conscience and as part of that the right to free speech. It was also the principle on which we based our university scholarship on. That all views were welcome even if they were uncomfortable in the persuit of truth and knowledge.

But the way todays critical theorist students and State institutions behave it seems only certain truths are allowed. This is not free speech.

Part of the secular progressive ideology was about being inclusive of alternative beliefs even to the point of accepting beliefs alien to our culture. But it seems the ideology has become a dogma against particular beliefs and points of view.

And I think its no coincident that the main belief not being tolerated is the Christain worldview. Its now seen as hate speech and yet just 20 years ago it was an accepted belief in the market place of beliefs.

What is telling is that if someone believes they know the truth then they will not be antagonised by different beliefs. Its the fact that Christain belief provokes such hate and wanting to cancel the speech before anyone can even express it to have a rational discussion is the tell tale sign that this is actually anti free speech.

 

[Stephen3141]

In most discussions of "freedom of speech", I assert that there is a
misunderstanding between the freedom to say/express something,
AND being morally-ethically responsible for what one says.

Freedom of speech, is NOT immunity from prosecution for what one
says.

Of course, THIS means that freedom of speech and a fair rule of law
(and due process), go hand in hand.

What seems obvious to me, is that currently many politicians confuse
what is moral-ethical, with the opinion of their political party on some
topic. AND, they want to legally prosecute people who disagree with
some political position. This is an abuse of BOTH freedom of speech,
AND due proxcess under a fair rule of law.

As in any fair rule of law, one principle should NOT be allowed to be used
to destroy other principles, in order to serve the goals of some individual.
Along this line, I see a lot of the rhetoric of "freedom of speech" being used
by politicians, to try to justify the inciting of lawless lynch mobs, against
anyone who disagrees with their political or personal opinions. THIS, is a
form of lawlessness, and should never be allowed in America.

 

[Niels]

Free will is free speech and it comes with consequences or blessings

Agreed. Much like how we willingly choose to follow Jesus. It isn't compulsory. Speaking of whom, he said things that the religious and political authorities of his day did not appreciate.

Would we rather be arrested for being a Christian, or would we rather live in a society where people can freely agree or disagree with us? To legally require public agreement with Christianity would seem hypocritical to me, given that the Biblical precedent is one of personal choice.

When free speech is restricted, people are compelled to be dishonest. This isn't limited to matters of faith, of course, but it's a starting point. If somebody has free speech and mistaken views on a topic, they are free to be wrong and we get to see where they stand. Free speech also provides an opportunity for others to point out potential errors and provide counter arguments. If the politicians forced us all to agree, our true thoughts would remain hidden and there wouldn't be much iron sharpening iron on a societal level. Injustices would persist because people wouldn't be allowed to discuss them let alone make corrections.

 

[Aaron112]

Injustices would persist because people wouldn't be allowed to discuss them let alone make corrections.

Thus, describing , the status of forums.

 

[eleos1954]

The issue of Free Speech looms large in our world.

I am interested in what is the biblical support for Free Speech and invite discussion on this topic.

Thanks for your participation.

Ephesians 4:29 ESV​

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

 

[Aaron112]

"Speaking the Truth Leads to Persecution​

Throughout history, numerous biblical figures and modern-day Christians have faced persecution for speaking the truth and living according to their faith. The Bible explicitly warns of this reality:

• Jesus himself predicted persecution for his followers (Matthew 5:11-12, John 15:18-21, 2 Timothy 3:12)
• The apostles and early Christians suffered persecution for their testimony (Acts 4:1-22, 5:17-42, 7:54-60)
• The prophets of old were persecuted for speaking God’s truth (Matthew 5:10-12, Hebrews 11:32-40)

In modern times, Christians continue to face persecution for their faith, including:

• Verbal attacks and insults
• Social ostracism and exclusion
• Legal challenges and restrictions
• Physical harm and even martyrdom

The Bible teaches that persecution is a natural consequence of living a life that reflects God’s truth and values. When we speak the truth and live in accordance with our faith, we can expect opposition from those who do not share our values or who are influenced by the kingdom of darkness (Ephesians 2:11-16, 3:1-10)."

 

[zippy2006]

I am interested in what is the biblical support for Free Speech and invite discussion on this topic.

I do not see the Bible speaking to the issue. Free speech and censorship are not topics that the Bible addresses in any obvious way. The posters who claim otherwise don't seem to understand what free speech is.

 

[NBB]

Speech is so a basic thing to have, that i agree is related to free will. I think is horrible if you can't speak your mind.

 

[Yarddog]

The issue of Free Speech looms large in our world.

I am interested in what is the biblical support for Free Speech and invite discussion on this topic.

Thanks for your participation.

If you are talking about free speech, as in a legal right for the people, I've seen against that. But, just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's beneficial for God's children, as Paul would say.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So the provision in the US constitution for 'free speech' was not in harmony with Scripture ?

It would be more that Scripture doesn't provide us with material support or opposition to the provision of free speech under the US Constitution. Though a biblical argument can be made that human beings ought to be free subjects. More specifically: laws which injure human beings, in particularly the most vulnerable, are a product of wickedness.

If we take the biblical example of the Prophets of Israel, their ministries often involved speaking openly and loudly against the corruption of the powerful, including against wicked kings of Israel. The most potent example is Elijah and the corruption of King Ahab. The Prophets, of course, we understand spoke on behalf of God, therefore their words were right, just, and true; but as far as freedom is concerned, by speaking against the powerful they were in trouble with the corrupt powers that be. There was no right of free speech in the ancient world, kings determined what speech was acceptable and what speech was punishable, to speak against the king was a dangerous thing to do.

Now, you and I, we aren't prophets, but should we have the freedom to speak against the corruption of kings? If the king (or president, or prime minister, or any figure of authority) acts in such a way that we believe is in error or even wicked, is it preferable that there be laws which protect our ability to use our voice to speak against it? To be critical of the king? Or is it preferable that kings determine what is acceptable, and thus to speak out against corruption become treasonous?

Would the values and virtues which Scripture provides for us be closer in support to the right of people to speak against the evil and corruption of systems of power; or to the right of those systems of power to silence through threats of violence and imprisonment any who would speak against them?

The Scriptures provide no material support for the modern idea of free speech, because the modern idea of free speech simply did not exist in the ancient world when the words of the Bible were written. However, as it pertains to values, virtues, and ethical concerns of justice and righteousness, would the Bible be on the side of the vulnerable, or on the side of the powerful? On the side of speaking against power when it is corrupt, or on the side of silencing opposition to power?

In which case I believe a biblical argument can be made for safeguarding, as a right and freedom, the voice of ordinary people to speak out against perceived injustices and corruption. The Bible is pro-Elijah, rather than pro-Ahab.

-CryptoLutheran