Speech is a Universal Right. Without speech, individuals of a society could not communicate with each another. Communication is a fundamental function of a species exhibiting sociality. Without communication, the sole supporting behaviour of sociality simply wouldn’t exist — not unlike an electric grid, or telephone network (without wires, the grid or network cannot exist). Logically, for any species to exhibit sociality is directly qualified as a sustainable function — as a response to the environment that shaped the genetic evolution of said species.
“Free Speech” is a subjectively social term. This term is debatable because it’s a social concept, and the balance between socially acceptable and unacceptable speech is blurred by the subjective nature of a social construct — ultimately requiring debate in the hopes of determining an absolute definition. The crux failing of this model is akin to deciding what colour is most pleasing overall, and to then vote on it.
Universal Rights is dynamic and balanced, thus, definition of acceptable/unacceptable speech is not hardened, nor could it be. Universal Rights only outlines the rights of any individual as proportional to their maximum potential — in both immediate or future. An individual with exceptional reasoning potential, has the potential to provide exceptional reasoning when addressing an issue. Still, the undefinable benchmark of superior reasoning is inherently undeliverable; only the recognition that qualification of acceptable or unacceptable speech cannot be defined by a hardened rule using a subjective process.
The clear aspect Universal Rights exposes supporting speech within society, is the noninterference of speech by those without the right to do so. Universal Rights will not offer an absolute for a dynamic ability such as speech. It will however provide a dynamic line. As an example of this line, an individual of a given society has the right to communicate information proportional to the accuracy of the information. In scientific circles, this information typically comes with unbiased qualification and accepts the possibility of correction.
In essence, information without unbiased qualification is potentially damaging to the society receiving the information. Each individual of a given society has the Universal Right for self determination in acting on impartial information. Without this right, individuals would be forced to act based on disinformation — constituting social manipulation — thus compromising their right to sustainable action. Those knowingly offer biased or false information are also affected, as their maximum potential in delivering accurate information will be reduced — eliminating their Universal Right to do so — basic cause & effect.
Such a harsh and indiscriminate result may seem reactive and antagonistic to the sharing of information, however the line is proportionately hardened to the assertions found in the information. In the scientific community, hardened claims are taboo. For whereas information reviewed by peers of comparable scientific potential, will result in discredit to those offering unsubstantiated hardened assertions.
Unbiased information presented with qualifying reasoning does not result in discredit (reduced potential), but draws accolades for aiding the advancement of greater knowledge. The reasoning in scientific culture is fundamentally open to challenge and welcomes change as a primary principal. The scientific process is a means to further understanding, and sheds any qualification for unsubstantiated assessment. The scientific model inherently builds intelligence because of this process. It represents a body of evolving intelligence with a single direction aimed at unquestionable truth. Only from the repeated qualification by peers of equal potential comes consensus for adoption. Yet still, the result is never absolute. It always offers change based on new qualified information, without fear of rebuke — celebrated for assisting in a more accurate understanding.
For as much as adaptation of a given species is compulsory for continued existence, the adaptation of sociality of said species is also compulsory for the continued existence of said society. Adaptation is required for growth of intelligence, and the process of adaption results in recorded intelligence — knowing how to function in the previous environment, and knowing how to function in the new environment. Without basic adaptation, any change in an environment would limit function within the new environment. Adaptation is intrinsic to life existing, and the adaptability of sociality is proportional to the adaptability of the respective species. The connection could not be more clear. Sociality is the result of adaptation of a species, and the society of said species must exhibit adaptability to continue existence.
To apply scientific reasoning to the communications of a given society, supports the noninterference requirement of Universal Rights. As sociality inherently adapts to a social environment, effective adaptation must be the result of adapting to the true shape of the social environment. False or inaccurate adaptation to a social environment is a result of inaccurate or false information. A society with inaccurate or false information must accept correction so as to allow effective adaptation within a social environment. To not correct information within a society is to limit the function of sociality within a species — violating the Universal Rights of both the society and the constituents.
Many species exhibiting sociality vary in complexity, yet no other species on Earth has falsely adapted to an environment and survived. Species exhibiting sociality continuously maintain an adaptable social structure — allowing it to evolve for thousands if not millions of years. The scientific process is not directly evident in the communications between members of these social species — that said, false or inaccurate communication is also absent. The imbalance does not exist, hence the scientific process is not needed to counter false or inaccurate information.
Such contrasts from human social governance. Little or no scientific process is employed when setting hardened social rules — adversely impacting the level of life known as society. If a social construct is dependant on the subjective qualification of limited or inaccurate information, how can the result attain sustainable social function? It isn’t that the function of a social organism requires sustainable information alone, but that adaptation to overcome inaccuracies in the social environment is categorically prevented. If a species is disallowed adaptation, it’s fundamentally steered into extinction.
Free Speech is but a byproduct of sustainable sociality of any species, hence the process required in allowing “free speech” must first address the root cause and not the symptom.
Drexus 