Free Speech Is Just a Mirage—And You’ve Been Fooled Into Believing It

If free speech is a human right, why is it so problematic when being emphasised? 

This is something that I find myself thinking about on rare occasions because I know exactly how loaded it is. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm an intellectual, but I do like to think. It's important to think because speaking out of turn, or even perceivable so can prove problematic with a myriad of complications. 

I don't think I would ever want to become a motivational speaker because that is when I fear I will one day become a liar. The idea of having a channel on YouTube with trending talking points has never really sat well with me. Yes, I would definitely be inclined to lie by omission because I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite. That, and the fact that YouTube has laws and regulatory policies over user content. 

To be honest with you, when I really think about this thing called free speech critically, I have a hard time believing it really exists. I think that there are powerful people in the world who get to speak directly and indirectly about their decisive opinions, and we are either inclined to believe or disbelieve them. I think that when we don't believe them, we are resigned to accept their hold over our basic rights and human dignity. There is a pecking order, and I will say this at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Some things are simply known by a few but never ever said. And if you don't know it, then maybe there is an essential and very interesting reason. Because, likely, you wouldn't be able to conceive the right question to ask to know the answer. This is what I consider the hidden truths of intellectuals who are happy to speak to like minds but never really divulge the much-needed facts that could just change the ways and direction of human intellectualism and the most essential discourses we have had as humans to the present day. 

I think it's so scary that the most profound thinkers have always been branded as lunatics, but no one asks why. 

Let’s take a real-world example. If free speech truly existed, then the same statements would be treated equally regardless of who says them. But we know that’s not true. A government critic can be arrested for ‘hate speech’ while a politician can insult entire communities and still get re-elected. A preacher can make controversial claims about morality, but an atheist expressing similar views could face public outrage. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. Even in supposedly ‘free’ societies, speech comes at a cost. If you challenge deeply held beliefs—whether religious, political, or cultural—you risk your reputation, your safety, and sometimes your life. This is why I say free speech is an illusion.

The Illusion of Free Speech & Power Structures

Free speech is often claimed as a universal right, but in reality, who gets to speak freely is dictated by power.

A politician can make inflammatory statements and get away with it, but an ordinary citizen making similar remarks might be silenced, arrested, or “cancelled.”

How many abductions have you heard of online activists being picked and entered into subarus because they said some truth that wasn't palatable according to the powers that be? How often have you heard politicians speaking out of turn in funerals, getting away with it because of their power or position within the government? Unfortunately, that's a very common occurrence in local politics. While some are at liberty to freely articulate themselves, the weak and destitute can only say so much without suffering the adverse consequences of a corrupt government that contravenes the law by constraining free speech, a democratic right for every citizen of the state. It makes you wonder who they really work for if that's the reaction to every citizen's attempt at free speech. It's not defamation or slander if they have statistics and evidence to support them. But they're likely to be in harm's way for being honest. Can we really say that we have just rulers in modern times? Plato said it well when he postulated that the honest man doesn't have any friends. 

Wealthy individuals control media narratives, but an average person sharing the same views might be ignored or censored. This is something we see quite often with the editing and reediting of media content to suit the narrative of the owner of the media house or those with the most shares in the company. There will never be raw and unbiased content for as long as the owners of these media outlets want to control the narrative. They're usually biased in favour of their preferred politicians and presidential candidates. It says so much about the integrity of the media house, but those are the sad state of affairs we are dealing with. Keeping the government in check has never been harder. 

Blasphemy laws in some countries: A religious scholar might critique their faith within limits, but an ordinary person might face legal consequences for the same discussion. Now, this is a very sensitive discussion that has always opened a can of worms. As far as free speech is concerned, people can only analyse or critique religion so much before they step on the wrong toes and spark controversy. This brings up the debate: How free should free speech be when it comes to the possible harm of the audience or spreading animosity in the community? Where does the law come in when it comes to regulation? And what of the court of public opinion? 

Selective Punishment for Speech

There should be as many forums as possible, creating a safe space for us to have to have this discussion in depth. The problem here is that the same speech can be punished or protected depending on who says it. A celebrity or academic can speak about controversial political issues without serious consequences. Yes, sure, in the event of strong unpopular views, they'll receive backlash. But because they are well-known public figures with talent, their fans have a short memory. As is the case with your typical Kenyan who has a preferred public figure. Kenyans have always had a short memory, and it's our ultimate undoing. It's the reason why politicians will continually be reelected and get away with corruption, immorality and even murder (names withheld). Make no mistake, the leaders in question know this very well and exploit the capriciousness of voters by going into full campaign mode early into their term in office when they're supposed to be working and producing results. Towards the end of the term, as they seek the favour of a reelection, they're seen donating a lot to religious institutions and funding and spearheading development projects. Just some surface-level PR to rack in as many undecided votes on the election day as possible. It's the oldest trick in the book, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

An employee in a corporate setting making the same statement could lose their job. In some societies, a man criticizing patriarchy may be tolerated, but a woman doing the same might be labeled as “radical.” A religious leader questioning their faith from within might be debated or tolerated, but an outsider doing the same could be met with violent reactions. 

Cultural and Social Conditioning in Free Speech

We are raised to believe in free speech, but we are also trained to self-censor. I wonder why that is so because it defeats the purpose of having an intellectual discourse. People avoid saying things that challenge deep-seated cultural, religious, or political beliefs out of fear of backlash. Social contracts shape speech: What’s okay to say in a mosque, a university, or an online forum differs—because free speech is shaped by social settings.

Blasphemy as the Ultimate Example of Free Speech’s Limits

Religion is a prime example of where free speech meets hard limits. In Kenya, there’s a level of openness in discussing politics, but religion remains untouchable in many spaces. It's the reason why the atheist societies are never given a chance to legitimise their organisations within the country, but they can talk freely online on social media. 

The reaction to blasphemy varies across cultures: 

In Western societies, you can critique religion without violent consequences.

In some parts of the world, blasphemy is punishable by death.

Even where laws allow criticism, social backlash can be severe (cancellation, threats, isolation).

The Role of Media in Controlling Free Speech

They have their work cut out for them. The following are some of the things that tend to happen:

• Social media platforms and traditional media decide what speech is allowed.

• Algorithms prioritize “acceptable” speech, suppressing controversial views. 

• De-platforming is a modern method of censorship.

Conclusion: The Mirage of Free Speech

If free speech were truly free, it would not be contingent on power, influence, or societal approval. But as it stands, speech is not an inherent right—it is a privilege, selectively granted and swiftly revoked when it threatens the wrong interests. The illusion persists because we are allowed to speak just enough to feel free but not enough to disrupt the status quo.

In reality, speech is a negotiation between what we wish to say and what we can afford to lose. The cost of words is not the same for everyone; it varies by status, platform, and the tolerance of those in power. A dissident risks imprisonment, a journalist risks censorship, and an activist risks disappearance. Meanwhile, those with power can rewrite narratives, absolve themselves, and dictate what is "acceptable discourse."

Perhaps the real question is not whether free speech exists but why we continue to believe in it. If truth is only safe in the mouths of the powerful, then speech is not free—it is leased to us under conditions we rarely control. And so, the struggle is not for the right to speak but for the right to be heard without consequence. Until that day comes, free speech will remain a mirage—visible from a distance, but forever out of reach.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” - George Orwell.