This article is a useful example regarding “free speech” in a democracy. Free speech is often associated with democracy (governance by the governed) and at least as far back as the Greek Athenians the philosophers and political observers asserted that free speech was also the greatest threat to a democracy — specifically that rhetoric, persuasion, narratives, conspiracy hypothesis, proliferation of unsubstantiated information and so on are not constrained by cautious investigation and verification but instead do shape culture and “reality” and in turn affect the trust and implied shared convictions society and in turn the stability (or instability) of a democracy. I am for free speech and open minded about the risks and pitfalls. Many of the Greek and Roman pundits proposed that the natural course of events is the breakdown of trust/unity in democracy is followed by perhaps oligarchy then authoritarianism. The US foundation I believe was a little more influenced by Roman structure but the founders were familiar with classic Greek arguments.

None of this to say that questions about the “truths”, interpretations, motives, multifaceted complexities of the ongoing barbarism in Ukraine are unmerited. That is the nature and challenge of free speech. It does feel at times that wildly divergent information that floods various mediums (generically, not this app) has the paralyzing effect of suggesting “don’t believe anything”. I work to keep an open mind but know I’m subject to bias and suggestion just like all of my fellow humans.

Here’s what I think I know. I have worked closely with business people who have been in meetings personally with Vladimir Putin. They said he was a “thug” and it struck my attention because I had never heard such an blunt negative assessment ever about any other of the many world leaders that the same people had met with.

I have Polish friends who have volunteered time to shuttle 100s of Ukrainian refugees. I haven’t heard anecdotes that sound like this narrative. That doesn’t mean the questions raised are without merit. Unlike trial law, in public discourse implied accusations organized as questions are part of the tool kit of rhetoric. I am in agreement with the idea that we might not agree in an opinion but am committed to free speech as vehicle for us to civility discuss ideas.

Of course feelings, ideologies, agendas, ambitions, filters and imaginations are part of the free speech discourse. As Americans we have managed so far to do both — wide ranging questioning, conjecture, speculation while finding enough common ground and assumed baseline trusts to maintain our fabric. I’m familiar with the sentiment suggested in this article (similar assessments or questions abound across the internet) and it certainly generated a lot of comments and engagement. Interesting.