Post publication note: This article was originally written before Elon Musk took over Twitter. Although he has a more permissive approach to free speech, I have decided to leave the article mostly unedited.
"The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him." - Proverbs 18:17 HCSB
Pro-vax: Ok, so here's why I think you should take both doses of the Covid-19 vaccine.
Me: Wow, you do make a compelling case. I may consider taking the jabs.
Anti-vax: Hold up, I have information that might change your mind.
Me: Ok, I'll hear you out.
Pro-vax: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don't you dare listen to that conspiracy theorist! >Binds and gags the anti-vaxer<
Anti-vax: *Mmmfmmghmm*
Pro-vax: He was spreading misinformation, I had to.
Me: Can I at least know what he had to say and then hear you out again?
Pro-vax: NO. Take the damn jab you selfish ****!
Me: You know... I'm really starting to doubt if I should... You're kind of... cultish...
Pro-vax: >Reveals more rope and slowly edges towards me<
From the above, I hope to illustrate the problem with censorship. Even when it comes to censoring what you might consider, and even what may actually be, "misinformation". When two or more ideas get into an intellectual battle, a thinking person can usually figure out who has the best case. As an apologist myself, I can confirm that even when you disagree with someone, you can at least acknowledge when they have some good points. A good debate between skilled and knowledgeable debaters, on a level playing field, results in a more informed audience, and sometimes even changed minds.
Of course, that's not always the case. People, being people, are often stubborn. As the saying goes, "a man convinced against his will is of his old opinion still". So, quite often, you will see that the audience will tend to gravitate towards "their" man, believing he "won" the debate regardless of the proceedings thereof. But if you're of a sound mind, you can even admit when "your" guy messes up and when the "other side" makes a good point. And of course, if you don't have a dog in the fight, you can usually tell who presented the better case.
This is, by far, the best way to do things. Not necessarily in the format of a debate, though there is value in that, but in the free flow of information. When competing ideas are allowed to actually compete, the better ones tend to dominate.
Contrast that with my little scenario in the beginning of this article. This is, unfortunately, representative of a very real, and indeed recent debate. There are a wide variety of opinions on Covid-19 vaccinations. Some of these opinions are insane, such as the opinion that Bill Gates has loaded the jabs with nano-bots designed to alter your body. Other opinions may be more reasonable, such as we should be vaccinating as many vulnerable people as possible.
Unfortunately, some opinions are more politically correct than others. Notice, I did not say actually correct. I said politically. This is because there are certain opinions, which I don't even think I need to highlight straight away, that are seen as being beyond criticism. And that is a very bad thing.
As you might expect from a ministry called Bible Brain, I'm saying all of this as a Christian. I believe in a perfect and Holy God who genuinely is above reproach, I believe blasphemy is a sin, and I believe in both Heaven and Hell. Furthermore, I believe the consequence of being wrong about Christianity is an eternity in Hell. If you die as an atheist, as a Muslim, even as a pseudo-Christian (i.e. someone who claims to be Christian but actually isn't), I believe you will spend forever paying for your sins in the lake of fire, where you will be tormented and have no rest day or night forever. By contrast, if you confess and repent of your sins before God and believe in your heart God raised Jesus from the dead, I believe your sins will be forgiven, and you will receive an inheritance of eternal life in God's Kingdom as His son or daughter.
Now, I don't know about you, but I can think of nothing more important than that. It's not even life and death, it's eternal life and eternal death. Quite a big deal. And of course, as an apologist, I see misinformation about Christianity All. The. Time. "The Bible supports slavery." Nope. "Religion is the cause of all wars." Nope. "Christianity held science back for 1,000 years." This is so easily refuted that I don't know how it lasted long enough for me to hear it once in my lifetime. These are just three common examples of misinformation against Christianity that still persist. And yet, in spite of how important I believe Christianity is, I do not call for that misinformation to be censored. Rather, I call upon every rational thinker who hears it to engage with it. If you're an unbeliever, look it up, ask yourself if it's true. You'll soon see it isn't. If you're a believer, you don't need to stop people from saying it, you can embarrass them by showing how wrong they are to say it.
Compare that with the hot topic of Covid-19 jabs. The first thing you see is that actually, the radically pro-vax are very quick to spread misinformation. As of this day, that being December 2nd 2021, even Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "anti-vaxxer" as "a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination". Well then, I guess I'm a vegan who eats meat, because I'm against regulations mandating eating meat, too. And I guess I'm a Muslim who worships Jesus, because I'm against mandating Christianity. And I must be a Jehovah's Witness who believes in blood transfusions, because while I would happily accept such a life saving procedure myself, I support a JW's absolute right to say no.
Do you see the insanity of just this one example? I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I oppose regulations mandating vaccination because I believe in a universally recognised medical ethic called "informed consent", as laid out in the Nuremberg Code 1947. Never in my adult life have I been anti-vax. In my childhood, sure. But as soon as I was reasonable enough to understand my right to refuse a vaccine, I was also able to be reasoned into accepting the polio vaccine. When the polio vaccine was offered to me, I was capable of saying no, and initially, out of fear, I did (keeping in mind, of course, I was a teenager). However, I was allowed to know all relevant information. Nothing was withheld from me, I even found anti-vax information, but in the end, I still, with the information I had, chose to receive the polio vaccine.
With the Covid-19 jabs, I wanted the same thing to happen. My beginning position was simple: I am not going to refuse, I'm going to let others go first. I wanted to watch how things played out. If it turned out the jabs were safe, and there was no funny business going on politically, I may well have taken it. However, things did not play out the way I wanted them to. Aside from undue pressure on me to take it far earlier than I wanted to, I began to notice that there was funny business going on. Information against the popular "take the jabs" narrative was aggressively censored. For me, the turning point was when LifeSite News interviewed Michael Yeadon, the former Vice President of Pfizer, regarding vaccine passports. Following the publication of that interview, LifeSite News was completely deplatformed from Facebook.
Vaccine passports, in and of themselves, are repugnant. They are a totalitarian measure with no place in civilised society. They are a coercive tactic designed to force people to take a vaccine even without making it a specific law. The very fact that it was ever an idea floated in government is very distressing, and now that they exist, even in their limited form, I fear for the future of my country. Michael Yeadon agreed, yet evidently, Facebook did not. By deplatforming LifeSite News, they sent a clear message to me: There is true information out there we don't want you to know, and we will do everything we can to hide it from you.
Of course, Facebook is only one company. They're certainly not a small company, but they are just one company. So what's the big deal? The first problem I see is that actually, Facebook is a part of the "digital public square". A lot of information is exchanged on social media, and all of the main social media "platforms" (a title which they are no longer worthy of) have similar unethical policies of censorship. And this does have far reaching consequences. Twitter, a similar social media "platform", may have even had a heavy effect on the 2020 U.S. presidential election by censoring the Hunter Biden scandal. A significant number of Biden voters admit that had they known about that story, it would have changed their vote.
And so we see that Big Tech actually has a lot of power, both to spread misinformation, and to hide important information. This to the extent of influencing the outcome of elections. To me, this is a giant threat. If you are that capable of hiding important information, you could make the absolute best possible case for Covid-19 jabs, and I still couldn't trust you, because I don't know what you've deleted. I don't know who you've silenced. I don't know what lies you've told. There is a man behind that curtain, but there's no Toto to pull it back. So why would I trust your good case? Ungag the anti-vaxxer, let me hear what he has to say. Then, you get to have your say again. You make your case, he makes his, you bring your rebuttal. If he's wrong, you should be able to show it. I have that kind of confidence when I face down an atheist. I can show there's a God. I can give reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I don't need to stop Richard Dawkins publishing dumb books. I don't need to ban AronRa from YouTube. I don't need to delete Matt Dillahunty from social media. I, and many other Christians of equal and greater skill, can show that these people are wrong.
So why are the radically pro-vax so against honest dialogue? If I have the confidence to allow even misinformation against Christianity to stand, why can't the Cult of the Jab stand even the most honest of criticism? The temptation is to say they're so scared of dialogue because they are wrong. And of course, it has made me, personally, very distrustful of everything they have to say. But it would be faulty logic. At the end of the day, truth stands regardless of who presents it. The devil himself can state the truth from time to time, even with his own lips. Nevertheless, all of this shows the superiority of free speech over any other model.
To really drive this point home, name one time in history when the ones doing the censoring were the good guys. When Muhammad slaughtered poets for writing about him, was it because he was a prophet, or was it because he was an evil politician with a fragile ego? When the Catholic Church would burn heretics at the stake, was it because they were the Church set up by the God who said "love your enemies", or was it because their days of absolute power were drawing to a close? When Hitler's goons silenced his opposition, was it for the good of humanity, or was it because the Nazi regime could only survive by keeping dissenters under 6ft of dirt? Stalin, Putin, Kim Jong Un, never in history has there been a good government that prohibits free speech. The one and only exception, of course, was pre-Christian Israel, governed by the law of Moses, given by the God who personally showed up as a pillar of fire and smoke, and only for a period of time leading up to the day He, Himself, would be crucified for the sins of all who will repent. Every other time censorship has been enforced, it has been by those with dubious motives.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right, afforded to us by our Creator. To God, even a message so important as the Gospel can be rejected in this life, with His command to His people being this: "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them." (Mark 6:11). "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." (Romans 12:18). "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16). "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" - 2 Corinthians 10:5 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." - Matthew 5:44-45
See the attitude of the Christian faith? Observe its confidence. Peace to the unbelievers. Love to the enemies. Reason for those who ask. Destruction of arguments, not flesh, for opponents and dissenters. And if they will not hear? Leave them, and let God sort them out on judgement day. This is the attitude of those who know they speak truth. Do you believe you speak truth? Then stand firm, and let us see if your views can handle cross examination. But be very suspicious of those who have such little faith that they must compel you, not with reason, but with force, to believe them.
I used Covid jabs in this article because it is the most current threat to free speech in our world, but ultimately, this applies to all things. Whatever you believe about anything, you should always test, and hold to it only if it is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). In the end, only truth will stand. Every knee will bow to Christ, because every eye will see Him in His full glory. Until that day, let us use reason to discover truth, and let us discard all that will not submit to honest scrutiny.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei