I recently stumbled upon a field study on the internet regarding changes in the significance of the concept of “freedom of speech” over the last decade,

conducted by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) team among university students. The results seemed quite interesting, as I sense a similar ripple among the new generation around me (in Latvia).

2/3 of those surveyed do not consider freedom of speech to be of any value; they are quite indifferent to it, as it seems much more important that one’s “words” do not make anyone feel sad or offended. 79% of respondents believe that the wishes of those who feel restricted in any way must be met as a matter of course. 61% of respondents admitted that in an ambiguous situation, it is better to sacrifice freedom of speech so that no one feels marginalised. 35% of students expressed the conviction that lecturers whose information, expressed in lectures, intentionally or unintentionally offends someone, should be banned from teaching at the university; furthermore, events should be organised by gender, and while this was previously requested by various religious groups, this position is now also supported by students who do not consider themselves religious, and so on.

As project director Nick Hillman (Nick Hillman, 1972) diplomatically put it: “the attitude of modern students towards freedom of speech differs from the stance of previous generations: they are simply not interested in it”.

In my youth, freedom of speech was an ideal to strive for. Most people loathed the Soviet double-speak, where many things could not be called by their names but had to be masked behind politically correct-sounding phrases. Freedom of speech was one of the first demands at the start of the anti-Soviet movement and the founding of the Popular Front. In Europe, this desire is an order of magnitude older. For more than 200 years, political battles have been fought, both literally and figuratively, until people gained the rights and the skill to discuss “uncomfortable topics”, eradicate racism and segregation, and change legislation. After all, these very students surveyed are in a comfortable position solely thanks to the fight for freedom of speech – generations before them achieved the opportunity to express opinions by risking their property and freedom, until they reached an optimum of social tolerance.

However, the world is set up in such a way that the pendulum continues its movement in the opposite direction... At the root is the age-old human conservatism, the desire to maintain, strengthen, and fortify the status quo – tolerance – which gradually drives everything to the opposite result. Tolerance itself is excellent (after all, Mother Nature created us differently, and the better people with opposing values learn to live together, the more comfortable life is for everyone), but the methods of consolidating and reinforcing it are not. And neither are the results.

It is interesting, was that the Plan, or just another coincidence, where yet again the road to hell is paved with good intentions?