Free Speech or Freedom from Speech?

When I think of limits on free speech, I usually think of public safety (like not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) or speech that directly harms or credibly threatens someone. But two questions really stand out: (1) Is retribution for free speech a form of free speech? (2) Where do we draw the line between these logical limits on free speech and just plain irresponsible speech?

I never thought I'd quote Idi Amin Dada, the former President of Uganda, especially since he expelled all non-native Ugandans, including many of my own family members from the country in the early 1970s. But the dictator’s words still ring true half a century later:

“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.”
--- Idi Amin (former President of Uganda, Inaugural Speech, 1971), 

What Do I Think?

Idi Amin's statement reflects those of past, present, and future global dictators, kings, or those who want to be kings. Growing up in Kenya in the 1980s, I understood this fear firsthand. Free speech was a privilege often muted by the threat of retribution. In Kenya, speaking out could send you to the notorious Nyayo House torture chambers. Only recently have these chambers been opened up to the media, shedding light on the oppressive environment that stifled free expression. 

Source: ChatGPT, 2/21/25

Even today, many people fear speaking out in the private or government workplace, despite whistleblower protections. It's difficult to prove retribution, and even when cases are taken to court, the penalties often seem weak or inconsequential. See this random example of a doctor who illegally fired his employee in upstate New York. For each case like this, how many others go uninvestigated or dismissed before a trial?

Why Should You Care

The question about retribution brings us to the tricky matter of the chicken or egg. It’s one thing to express an opinion under free speech. But what about retribution for that [free] speech? In reality it is, in itself, a form of free speech. Or at least until it harms or credibly threatens someone. 

The case of book banning provides a perfect example of free speech being used to silence free speech. Under the guise of “free expression,” political elites or influential individuals often use their power to suppress speech they don’t want circulated. For instance, in Kenya in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the books The Africans by David Lamb and the Rogue Ambassador by former US Ambassador to Kenya, Smith Hempstone, were both banned.

Later, under international pressure, Kenya returned to a multiparty system with more freedoms. The Kenan government publicly claimed that they were no longer in the business of banning books.

In 2008, British author, Michela Wrong published It’s Our Turn to Eat, an exposé of Kenyan corruption. Kenyan bookshops orders for the book and then later cancelled them. The elite, who did not want the book circulating widely in Kenya, used their influence to prevent its distribution by threatening the bookshop owners. Is that free speech?

This isn't just an issue of speech; it’s about how power and influence can manipulate and silence voices that challenge the status quo. That power also manifests in those that buy a newspaper or a social media platform in order to control speech. 

However, these acts (preventing distribution, buying media outlets) are indirectly an exercise of free speech and capitalism! Do you agree? 

What About Irresponsible Speech?

Today, we face the same dilemma with "irresponsible speech." To me, this means speech that is reprehensible or unacceptable. Of course, up front, I must acknowledge that you and I may have different opinions as to what is irresponsible. After all, we live in a pluralistic society with freedom of speech and should accept, if not embrace, each other's opinions. So can we ever draw a line?

When reflecting on the Danish cartoon controversy, the late Aga Khan IV, former spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslim community, opined:

“I am suggesting that freedom of expression is an incomplete value unless it is used honorably, and that the obligations of citizenship in any society should include a commitment to informed and responsible expression.” — Aga Khan IV, February 2006. 

The BBC’s perspective on the same cartoon controversy followed a similar theme; it was aptly named: “A clash of rights and responsibilities”.  

This problem is especially pertinent in our age of social media, where any voice can be amplified without consideration for the impact it may have. It is easier to hurt someone on social media than in person to their face. It's easier to fire someone via email or a social media post than in-person.

Speech should be informed and responsible, ensuring that we consider not just our own freedoms but also the consequences of our words (or actions).

So, what do you think? Was Idi Amin right—can we really guarantee freedom after speech? Are there limits on free speech? Is retribution for speech an act of free speech or an abuse of the very freedoms we hold dear? How should we consider the impacts of our speech?