Freedom with conditions is not freedom – a Chomskyan critique of the Pearson case

The Britse The British teacher Simon Pearson was dismissed after he publicly criticized what he called a "two-tier justice system" in the Lucy Connolly case. Although Lucy's statements may sound harsh or bitter, they arose from raw emotion following the fatal stabbing of children — an act that left deep scars in society. But the question arises: are emotions, however painful, no longer allowed to be expressed when they clash with the prevailing narrative?

Noam Chomsky would likely not analyze this case based on the incident itself, but rather by examining the structures that determine what may be said — and by whom.

Freedom of speech: not a luxury, but a litmus test

According to Chomsky, freedom of expression is only truly valuable when we defend it for statements we despise. His famous quote: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

Lucy Connolly's words were sharp. They came from anger, grief, and perhaps fear — human emotions that Viktor Frankl considers understandable in extreme contexts: "An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior."
When people are confronted with the incomprehensible — such as the loss of a child through violence — emotion is not a choice, but a reflex. Chomsky would argue that it is precisely then that there must be room for expression, even if it is uncomfortable.

The media and the filtering function: Manufacturing Consent in action

Chomsky's theory in Manufacturing Consent states that the media are not neutral providers of information, but rather gatekeepers: they decide who is allowed to speak and within which framework.

Media frames around migration, crime, and justice are sensitive. Statements that fall outside socially acceptable boundaries are often immediately labeled as "extreme," "dangerous," or "discriminatory" — without room for context or emotional background. Simon Pearson pointed to an uncomfortable truth and was promptly removed from the public discourse — losing his job as the price.

Repression is not always legal, but institutional

According to Chomsky, the most dangerous thing about liberal societies is that they maintain the appearance of free speech while structurally limiting it in practice.

A teacher who speaks out on a socially sensitive issue — even if he understands the emotion of a parent - is punished because his opinion might bring the institution "into disrepute."

Chomsky would say: "That's not freedom. That's soft censorship by power structures."

Personal reflection: media as a tool of power

My own experience with political intimidation by journalists fits seamlessly into this analysis. Through blackmail or guilt association - for example, linking me to people I didn't know - they tried to pressure me. This shows how the media can also function as an instrument of control: not only over what you say but especially over what you still dare to say.

Chomsky has been warning about these mechanisms for decades:

"The media serve the interests of the powerful by shaping public opinion through selection and emphasis, not by overt lies."