4 ms·

The current divisive political comment in the US has caused me to rethink my previous position on free speech, (Re-think as in think over, not just decide I wa

The current divisive political comment in the US has caused me to rethink my previous position on free speech, (Re-think as in think over, not just decide I was wrong) and I have ed found a lot less certainty. On the one hand, speech is a fundamental of any kind of improvement. Without speech that challenges the status quo, the status quo is all you get. Sure, you avoid lies and discomfort, but you are stuck with the discomfort you have. (and, importantly, the discomfort others suffer out of proportion with yourself). Heck, how can one even speak out against free speech without relying on it? It seems like the ultimate winning argument. On the other hand, the idea that we are all active, rational beings that are well positioned to understand when we are being deceived is actively false. Not only is this NOT true for most everyone, it is also basically impossible - there is far too much to learn if we try to verify even "simple" assertions. We must end up trusting other parties to do some evaluation (and we can only do cursory evaluations of trustworthiness for the exact same reasons). Any effort to be well informed and rational must be built on a foundation of trusting the well informed and rational behavior of others, and that's before even considering whether any behavior is HONEST. The concept of the First Amendment in the US constitution is about barring govt interference in speech. I dont believe that is the same as supporting uninhibited speech - the system breaks down if all speech is treated equally. We rely on social pressures to silence (Or reduce the volume of) bad voices. "Fine", the observer says "being considered an asshole unworthy of listening to is a perfectly fine result. Free speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences". Yet we have propped up the idea that speech should NOT be silenced. The above comment is talking about the actions of a private company, not the govt. It is saying "people should support the voices of others at at least a minimum level (refusing to silence), and if they do not do so our voices should speak up against THEM". Where is our ability, be that as individuals that might be part of companies, or as members theoretically responsible for the govt and definitely living in the society that the govt supports, to silence poisonous voices? How can we recognize that speech, even uncomfortable speech, is a vital need for progress, without giving power to those elements that will happily and dishonestly abuse the system we create in ways that harm that system (and a lot of people?) Must we continue to empower the sociopaths and those utterly without empathy because we fear anything less is harmful? I don't know the answer, but I'm a lot less confident that pegging the gauge at "all speech without limit" is truly the best answer. A test I like to give to any theoretical solution is "would this have been used against what I consider GOOD dislikes speech?" (abolitionism, womens suffrage, civil rights, marriage equality, etc). A lot fails this test...yet I find that historically those efforts faced a lot of problems. Hell, we dont have gender or racial equality today despite all the time we've talked about it, and a lot of people have suffered, at varying levels of misfortune, trauma, mutilation, and death. To point at this "progress" and say "yes, this is the best way to achieve improvement" seems short-sighted. We should be wary of inducing an oppressive society, but not every slope HAS to be a slippery slope.

krapp 7y ago
I think you've discovered that the premise of the marketplace of ideas suffers from the same flaw as the premise of a pure free market - the assumption that markets will always optimize for quality (or objective truth) due to humans being rational actors. But of course, that's not the case. Markets aren't rational, bad actors and perverse incentives exist and because of this, regulations exist ostensibly to force markets to be more fair than mere supply and demand would permit. The fact that we currently live in an age in which access to well formed, well researched arguments to the contrary of any viewpoint are abundant and freely available, yet extremism is on the rise, demonstrates that letting bad ideas spread and simply expecting rational counter-arguments to kill them does not work. The extremists are well aware of views to the contrary, and couldn't care less. Checkmate atheists, as it were. I'm personally starting to be sold on the Paradox of Tolerance[0], and the premise that for free speech to be protected, some speech must be limited: In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance In other words, the marketplace of ideas doesn't work unless there are consequences for selling snake-oil and poison.

krapp 7y ago

I think you've discovered that the premise of the marketplace of ideas suffers from the same flaw as the premise of a pure free market - the assumption that markets will always optimize for quality (or objective truth) due to humans being rational actors. But of course, that's not the case. Markets aren't rational, bad actors and perverse incentives exist and because of this, regulations exist ostensibly to force markets to be more fair than mere supply and demand would permit. The fact that we currently live in an age in which access to well formed, well researched arguments to the contrary of any viewpoint are abundant and freely available, yet extremism is on the rise, demonstrates that letting bad ideas spread and simply expecting rational counter-arguments to kill them does not work. The extremists are well aware of views to the contrary, and couldn't care less. Checkmate atheists, as it were. I'm personally starting to be sold on the Paradox of Tolerance[0], and the premise that for free speech to be protected, some speech must be limited: In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance In other words, the marketplace of ideas doesn't work unless there are consequences for selling snake-oil and poison.