JUST PUBLISHED: Why A Free Society Depends on the Right to Offend
For centuries, the West worked to rid itself of blasphemy laws. We fought hard so people could question, doubt, laugh, provoke, and speak plainly. And now, ironically, we are watching new laws, new taboos, and new speech codes emerge.
The ones who want to control our speech do that from a self-proclaimed position of tolerance, which allows them not to tolerate criticism of their position. This time, it’s not only the church but also moralist culture asking us to bite our tongues. All in the name of “progress”.
Should there be limits to free speech? Should it be tethered to truth? Pontius Pilate once asked Jesus, “What is truth?” It is a question that remains just as unresolved today. Some might say truth is whatever we can all agree on. When is the last time everyone agreed on anything? Consensus seems to be as rare as common sense.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan, wrote about the tyranny of the vocal minority. He argued that small, loud, and organised groups often steer the conversation for everyone else. That applies across the board, whether we’re talking about language, cultural norms, or public policy. The majority, often silent, stays quiet for too long, allowing the minority to reshape the terrain. They might have a point. They might even be right on some things. But when they demand not only the right to speak but also the right to silence others, we should all be concerned. Because under the banner of “free speech”, they push cancellation, coercion, and one-sided conversation.
Religion is one of the most fiercely protected areas in this whole equation. If you look at religious history in the West, you’ll find that the church once operated very much like the Taliban. It forbade reading. It forbade translation of holy texts. It burned people alive for daring to think independently. There are people who still defend this on theological grounds. As I wrote in my book and said in interviews, “religion doesn’t need evidence – it needs fear, guilt, and repetition.”
The God described in Abrahamic faiths is said to be the creator of everything. Surely such a being could communicate more clearly. Yet the Bible and the Quran have birthed many different denominations, each splintering from the last while each claiming the true meaning. Within each sect, we find apologists and theologians who claim to know what God meant, often without even agreeing among themselves. It is these men — and yes, they are almost always men — who wield spiritual authority to exert power over others.
Here is a modest proposal. The next time a priest of any faith tells us that the end of the world is near, they should be required to give up all their earthly possessions to the poor immediately. I bet you the doomsday predictions would come down dramatically. The truth is that secular, humanist forces pushed the church to modernise. The separation of church and state did not happen because the church had an epiphany. It happened because the people demanded it. And even now, we have not settled the matter.
In the Islamic world, Mosque and State have yet to separate. In parts of the West, many Christians are trying to reverse the separation, convinced that if religion were to govern again, it would be their version of it.
We all know what happens when faith becomes shield, sword, and microphone. The child sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and other denominations are not just moral failures. They are structural ones. These institutions enabled the abuse, covered it up, and protected the perpetrators. If they had been a secular organisation, they would no longer exist. This is why I questioned religion.
In my first book, Why Is It? We Are Afraid of Being Descendants of Incest but Not Monkeys, I asked uncomfortable questions. In my second, Is God Real? Hell Knows, a translation of one already published in Swedish, I do the same with humour as my weapon. Because laughter disarms. And sometimes, irreverence is the best way to tell the truth. I point to comedians who have a carve-out for free speech. A smile goes a long way to make you think.
How far should free speech go? In my view, as far as possible and maybe a bit beyond my limits. Not to incite violence. Not to coerce. But to test boundaries. Because boundaries are where censorship hides.
Of course, the big question is whether we must tolerate speech that includes lies. But that depends. Is it a lie if the speaker believes it? And who gets to decide what is a lie in the first place? The line is not easy to draw.
If I become the arbiter of what speech is acceptable, then I become the very thing I criticise. Free speech cannot be filtered through the lens of personal preference or emotional comfort. It must remain a right, not a reward.
Today, we see self-proclaimed moralist groups championing anti-racism, anti-violence, and anti-genocide, all while using the same tools they condemn to silence their enemies. They believe themselves virtuous even as they weaponise shame and outrage.
The religious world is no exception. “Peaceful” beliefs can escalate into dangerous movements when leaders tell their followers that violence is righteous. The problem is not belief. People are free to believe what they want. The problem is when belief is used by leaders as a ladder to power, on the backs of their congregations. Too many religious figures cannot resist the pull of politics. They gather followers in the name of God, then reroute their flock leadership into political currency. They use pulpits like podiums. They build influence not through persuasion, but through obedience. The majority often stays quiet, but not forever. Sooner or later, it wakes up. If it wakes up too late, the damage may be done.
The pendulum may have swung too far. But eventually, it swings back. We need free, honest, and even offensive discourse, and if we learn to handle the offence, we are less likely to resort to violence.
Let people speak. Then listen. Then speak back. The only people you learn something new from are the people you don’t agree with. You already know your own opinion. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
