The Hypocrisy of Freedom of Speech

On tribalism, listening, and the loss of dialogue

Introduction

Freedom of speech is often defended as a pillar of democracy. "The right to speak" is praised as an essential foundation of an open society. But what happens when that freedom is only claimed by one's own camp? When the other is technically allowed to speak, but is consistently ignored, ridiculed, or morally excluded? This essay explores the paradox of modern expression: everyone wants to be heard, but fewer and fewer people are willing to listen.

From Pillars to Ideological Tribalism

The Netherlands has historically had a pillarized society, where ideological groups each had their own media, schools, and communities. As these structures faded, there was hope for a more open and integrated society. Yet instead of building bridges, we see a new kind of separation: ideological tribalism. Society fragments into camps that distrust, demonize, or mock each other — often fueled by an overload of information rather than ignorance.

The New Bubble: Algorithmic Isolation

In the digital age, people choose their own realities. Algorithms reinforce preferences, affirm worldviews, and filter out dissent. The result: digital echo chambers in which opposing opinions are not just seen as wrong, but inhuman. Everything from the "other side" is rejected by default. Suspicion replaces curiosity. Freedom of speech becomes a weapon in the battle for ideological dominance.

The Collapse of True Debate

Public discourse frequently praises the "free debate," but in practice, it rarely exists. What we often see are parallel monologues where individuals speak to their own base. The aim is not to seek truth, but to confirm biases. The other is not a dialogue partner but an adversary to be defeated. People loudly demand freedom but use that freedom to wall themselves off from dialogue.

Freedom Requires Maturity

True freedom of speech demands more than the right to speak. It requires the ability to listen, to endure discomfort, to be affected without immediately retreating into defensiveness. In a mature democracy, disagreement is not a threat but a chance for growth. Those who genuinely believe in freedom of speech also defend the right of others to say things that challenge and provoke.

Philosophy as a Foundation of Freedom

To nurture such maturity, it is crucial that people learn to philosophize from a young age. Children should not only absorb facts, but also learn to question, to wonder, and to test their ideas against others'. Philosophy teaches openness to the unknown — a necessary skill in a time of rigid opinions and social division.

Thinking Together with Technology

Artificial intelligence can also play a valuable role in this process. Engaging in open-ended conversations with an AI database can help people explore new perspectives, free from emotional bias. Still, critical reflection remains essential. Though an AI may operate objectively, we must remain mindful of the intentions of its programmers and the purposes for which it is used. Technology should not replace thinking, but inspire deeper thinking.

Conclusion: The Right to Be Moved

The greatest threat to freedom of speech is not censorship, but indifference. Not laws, but walls of dismissal, cynicism, and prejudice are what erode public discourse. Freedom consists not only in speaking, but in the courage to listen. Perhaps that is the most forgotten form of courage in our time: the willingness to be moved by something you'd rather not hear.