Free Speech and Me Speech

A helpful distinction

Back in college, I had a professor who liked to make “helpful intellectual distinctions.” He was a kind man and a wonderful political scientist who specialized in the hard topics of war and escalation. He found himself later in life among policy types, who while respecting him greatly smiled at some of his formulations. When he offered a “helpful intellectual distinction” the mood lightened but people listened.

In difficult times we need to be careful with language, and keeping important distinctions in mind can help us, at the very least, from making things worse. For example, there is a difference worth noticing, and noting, between “me speech” and “free speech”.

“Me speech” is a common practice among rich and influential Americans. Practitioners of “me speech” use the phrase “free speech” quite a bit. But what they mean is free speech for themselves. They want a monopoly on it.

They believe that they are right about everything, and so they should always have giant platforms, in real life or on social media. They people with whom they disagree, however, should be called out and intimidated in an organized way on social media, or subjected to algorithmic discrimination so that their voices are not heard. These people suppress the freedom of speech. But because they repeat the phrase “free speech” quite a lot, the media will often associate them with the idea. This, of course, tends to make the notion of “free speech” meaningless.

Free speech has to be for everyone. And that means that influential and powerful people who believe in free speech would not seek to intimidate or discriminate. They would not create difficulties for those with whom they disagree. On the contrary, they would accept that people with whom they disagree should be encouraged and supported. People who believe in free speech admit that they, personally, might be wrong. And people who believe in free speech understand its ultimate purpose, which is to enable people to speak truth to power without fearing any consequences.

It helps to see the difference between me speech and free speech. If we celebrate me speech, we lose free speech. Or, more to the point, if we celebrate the me speakers, we lose the free speakers. If the term “free speech” just becomes a call to admire those who suppress the expression of others, then it means nothing, or really less than nothing.

As for me, I believe that the right concept is “freedom of speech” and, best of all, “free speakers.” To become free speakers, we need to be fearless, which means that other should not be trying to intimidate or tame or harm us, be they the government or be they powerful individuals. The fearlessness has to be attached to values about which we really care, which come from human interactions, from relationships, from friends and parents and teachers and books. To become free speakers, in other words, we all need care, and time, and education.

Free speakers, I think, see the problem with me speakers. Free speakers will not need cults or oligarchs. They will want facts and ideas. They are not sure of themselves and usually wrong, but reflective and sometimes right. They are respectful, because they know they always have something to learn. And they are empathetic, because they know that they will learn only from those whose lives have been different than their own.

Freedom of speech is skeptical power: it is always a challenge. And it affirms truth: it is always a search. Without skepticism of power and affirmation of truth, we will not have freedom of speech. The me speakers push us to embrace their power and treat everything they say as truth. They will call this “free speech.”

If we indulge that perversion we are asking for the tyranny we will get.

TS Kyiv 12 September 2025