3 ms·
> A good justification of free speech needs to start with realistic assumptions about how speech is used. This must be accompanied by a realistic assumption of
by haberman 6y ago
> A good justification of free speech needs to start with realistic assumptions about how speech is used.
This must be accompanied by a realistic assumption of how power is used. Wielding of political power (particularly tyrannical power) is nearly always accompanied by suppression of speech that expresses dissent.
Demagoguery may pollute a search for the truth, but nothing cements misinformation like a climate where people are prevented from saying true things.
- throwawaygh 6y agoYes, this starts to move toward what I would consider better justifications for free speech. Free speech is fundamentally about the machinations of power. Truth and sound reasoning are not unimportant per se, but they're certainly more instrumental than fundamental when it comes to the purpose of free speech.
- nine_k 6y ago> people are prevented from saying true things. But nobody can guarantee that most things people say are indeed true. So the "true things" limitation needs to be lifted, else it suppresses free speech all the same ("everybody knows Earth is flat, and humans were created less than 7000 years ago; please shut up and stop spreading disinformation").
- haberman 6y agoI wasn't meaning to suggest that only provably true speech should be protected. Certainly for libel/slander/defamation you have to prove that a statement was untrue to get a judgment against it.