3 ms·

Like with the Paradox of Tolerance, the absolutist free speech position paradoxically leads to loss of free speech. Speech that is "truth to power" has to be de

by pornel 6y ago

Like with the Paradox of Tolerance, the absolutist free speech position paradoxically leads to loss of free speech. Speech that is "truth to power" has to be defended. But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. There are people/orgs/governments that are experts in twisting the idea of free speech to their advantage. They know very well what to say to change clear opposing voices into a "controversy", represent indisputable facts as "opinions", and play free speech card when called out on it. They can keep doing it until people who genuinely want to evaluate all sides can't keep up with all the distractions. And there are lots of cases when people are just being assholes. They enjoy that they can troll as much as they want and "freeze peach! slippery slope!" magically elevates any stupid shit they say into an important political message to be defended at all costs.

Thorentis 6y ago
Right now, the "powerful people" are shaping the narrative far more by what they censor, than what they say. Preventing particular sides from sharing their views shapes the debate far more than adding noise to another side.
luckylion 6y ago
> But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. But that just moves the problem to the question of "who is powerful?", doesn't it? Everybody feels that their side isn't in power because their goals and ideals haven't been completely achieved, so obviously they are the powerless who are speaking truth to power, and therefore the other side are the powerful who are spreading lies to silence dissent. That doesn't help. I think there's a good chance for anybody that they are wrong in their perception of who is in power, their perception of what "the powerful" want, their political convictions and theories of life, so any kind of distinction of what speech to suppress and what to allow is pretty much a coin flip with regards to this "allow & support speaking truth to power".
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Who is more powerful: The President of the United States, or me? While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Unless you legitimately believe that it is always impossible to determine when there is a power imbalance in a relationship. But we make that decision just fine in many other situations, so I don't know why speech would be different.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Compared to you vs the US president, I'd say all cases are ambiguous. Are we just measuring the president and then say "that's what the people in power believe", or are we determining everyone's power level and opinions and then weigh both to find out what part of those in power believe X? It's impossible to do accurately, and you won't get a binary picture even if you managed to do it.

by pornel 6y ago

Thorentis 6y ago

Right now, the "powerful people" are shaping the narrative far more by what they censor, than what they say. Preventing particular sides from sharing their views shapes the debate far more than adding noise to another side.

luckylion 6y ago

> But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. But that just moves the problem to the question of "who is powerful?", doesn't it? Everybody feels that their side isn't in power because their goals and ideals haven't been completely achieved, so obviously they are the powerless who are speaking truth to power, and therefore the other side are the powerful who are spreading lies to silence dissent. That doesn't help. I think there's a good chance for anybody that they are wrong in their perception of who is in power, their perception of what "the powerful" want, their political convictions and theories of life, so any kind of distinction of what speech to suppress and what to allow is pretty much a coin flip with regards to this "allow & support speaking truth to power".

joshuamorton 6y ago
Who is more powerful: The President of the United States, or me? While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Unless you legitimately believe that it is always impossible to determine when there is a power imbalance in a relationship. But we make that decision just fine in many other situations, so I don't know why speech would be different.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Compared to you vs the US president, I'd say all cases are ambiguous. Are we just measuring the president and then say "that's what the people in power believe", or are we determining everyone's power level and opinions and then weigh both to find out what part of those in power believe X? It's impossible to do accurately, and you won't get a binary picture even if you managed to do it.