> If the person understands why the freedom of speech is important

You can also try Edward Snowden's analogy:

“Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

Sadly I worry that many people don't care about freedom of speech either. I wonder if such people would also be unmoved by this analogy:

“Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about the right to vote because the party you support is currently in power.”

That's a terrible analogy. You could just as well say that you don't care about the right to bear arms because you have nothing to shoot. Besides, I have never heard anybody say they have nothing to hide, so it is a strawman.

There are hundreds of good arguments for a right to privacy. This isn't one of them.

Assuming you're saying that my analogy is terrible (and not Snowden's), I agree that it doesn't directly argue for the right to privacy. My intention was rather to show (as a proof by contradiction) that the "logic" of devaluing privacy and freedom of speech would also suggest that voting is unnecessary.

There is a real temptation for people to think "Society is generally fine the way it is, so I don't want things to change", which makes them react negatively to things like protests or even whistleblowing (because it causes them cognitive dissonance).

Such people might feel confident that even if the government did abuse its power, it would only spy on, or silence, or hurt people who aren't like them. They therefore may not feel that these fundamental rights are doing them much good, and they don't consciously exercise them. However, many of them would exercise their right to vote, and could imagine the government turning against them if there were no more elections.

I was saying that Snowden's analogy is terrible.

Yeah, I've tried that explanation as well. I think the problem is that privacy as a problem is fairly abstract and multi-branched in both issues and logic.

Ask them to give you 100 bucks from their wallet. Then keep it.

Cheapest privacy lesson they'll ever get.

(The point: privacy about who is allowed to acquire the valuables. The owner is in control, not someone else. Once they decide to give that away: fine, now it's no longer under their control.)

And their messages, their photos, and so forth. After all, they have got nothing to hide!

Sometimes I think the issue is not being personalized enough, as in, because they do not know the person doing it, it is not an issue. It is an issue if it is you, standing next to them, but it is not an issue if you would be out of sight. It is silly.