The Hand That Hollows Free Speech - by Christian Liguda
Discourse Architecture
SubscribeSign in
The Hand That Hollows Free Speech<br>How free is speech when someone decides what is seen?
Christian Liguda<br>Aug 03, 2026
Share
“Free speech is pure bullshit.”<br>That was Emmanuel Macron in New Delhi in February, in the version that traveled, and it made the French president sound like a censor. If the sentence reached you at all, it probably reached you in that shape. What he said was longer: “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided through this so-called free speech.” Stop there, and the complaint has changed character. This is no longer a censor talking. It is someone pointing at the space between speakers and their audience: somewhere in that space a mechanism arranges what you see, and that mechanism is why the short version is the one that reached you. Ironically, his own quote became an example of the bullshit he was referring to.<br>But that stop, too, was ours, and the sentence goes on: “especially when it’s to be guided from one hate speech to another hate speech.” With the ending restored, the demand changes direction. Knowing how you are guided is one wish. Being guided away from certain speech is another, and it needs someone to decide which speech that is. The previous essay in this series, Can You See the Line That Decides What You May Read and Say?, walked that line and found it blurred: nobody can say exactly what counts as hate speech and what does not. And Macron went on, in the same appearance: “I want public order. I want to avoid racist speech, hateful speech.” The whole of it, complaint and demand together, is almost certainly the least traveled version of what he said.<br>No one suppressed any of it. The longer versions sat in the same reports, a paragraph down. People posted different versions of his sentence, and the shorter, more misleading ones traveled farthest, not because anyone decided that, but through the hand of the platform: the mechanism that arranged what every reader saw.1 The same decision is made for every post and every statement that is published. Macron’s first clause points at it exactly: the hand nobody can see. That hand is our subject.<br>§1 — The Rise of the Invisible Hand
The best-known defense of free speech was written in 1859, and it rests on an assumption its author never had to state. John Stuart Mill’s case in On Liberty is that silencing an opinion robs everyone, the silencers included: if the opinion is true, we lose the truth; if it is false, we lose the sharper grip on truth that comes from its collision with error. The whole argument runs on friction. An opinion must meet its opposite, and the meeting has conditions: the opposing view has to reach you, and reach you as it is.2<br>Mill set the bar higher still. Whoever would really know the truth must hear the arguments, he wrote, “from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them.” It is not enough that the other side arrives. It must arrive in its strongest form, from someone who means it. Hold that next to the five words that traveled out of New Delhi: what reached most people was not a position defended in earnest, but the fragment best suited to travel.<br>Mill wrote at a different time, before mass media and long before social media. But even in 1859 someone chose: publishers and editors decided what was printed and what was not, no law involved. Still, for a century the assumption mostly held. Then the media that carried public argument grew strong and grew concentrated. In the America of 1965, three television networks could put a position in front of the whole country in one evening, or leave it out. In that landscape Herbert Marcuse, a philosopher of the New Left, wrote “Repressive Tolerance”, an essay on the influence of the media.<br>His diagnosis had two layers, and the first concerned the format. Tolerance in the affluent democracy is broad, he conceded: “all points of view can be heard.” What troubled him was the leveling that came with the breadth. In “endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed.”<br>The second layer concerned the frame around the debates. The conditions of tolerance, he wrote, are “loaded”: set by “institutionalized inequality,” by who holds the instruments of opinion. Whoever would reach the majority needs the channels, and the channels have owners. Three years later he put it plainly: “The Left has no equal voice, no equal access to the mass media.”3 Equal treatment inside channels held that unequally, he concluded, “actually protects the already established machinery of discrimination.” Nobody in either layer is forbidden to speak. The complaint is about whose speech the channels carry, and with what weight.<br>He was describing something older than the sixties. Of all that happens in the...