5 ms·

Firstly your belief is knowledge that was created at some point and it spread because people had the right to say it. Second, a just society is dependent on th

Firstly your belief is knowledge that was created at some point and it spread because people had the right to say it. Second, a just society is dependent on there being a society at all. The only way humans will solve the problems that threaten our existence is by creating new knowledge. In this way the progress created by free speech is foundational to all else.

SantalBlush 5y ago
It appears that you're conflating the notion of free speech with any speech whatsoever, and implying that if free speech rights weren't enforced, then we would have no speech and thus would have no society and no knowledge. This is demonstrably false according to plenty of historical evidence. It's simply nonsense.
- tdehnel 5y ago
  You got the wrong idea. I’m saying when we limit speech we risk limiting progress, not eliminating progress all together. The key is that we have no idea how we are limiting progress because the progress has yet to happen. But it will, as long as we tolerate new ideas and criticism (and not just the “right kind” of new ideas). We should always err on the side of more freedom rather than less, except in cases where there are imminent and likely illegal consequences.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Again, this is absolutely not the main justification for free speech. As a thought experiment, suppose we had a way of knowing which speech would advance knowledge and which speech would hinder our knowledge; by your reasoning, it would then be ethical to silence the speech that we knew would hinder our knowledge, since the point of free speech is to improve our collective knowledge. This is wrong on its face. It's not what free speech is about. The concept exists because it's unethical to harm others over what they say.
    - tdehnel 5y ago
      The point is we don’t know. We will never know which new knowledge is created and which new problems will be caused. But only by allowing open and free trade of ideas will we be able to quickly solve them. But to take your point and run with it…why is “because it’s ethical” a worthy goal? That seems to be circular reasoning, and also relies on one concept of “ethical”. How do we define what is ethical?
      - SantalBlush 5y ago
        You already used your own notion of "ethical" in your original comment when you implied that stifling the creation of new knowledge is bad. Did you really think that just because you didn't use the word "ethical" in your comment, that it is devoid of ethical statements? That's not how it works. By suggesting that free speech has a "purpose", you are making an ethical statement. >The point is we don’t know. That's really not the point. Your whole thesis depends on your assumption that new knowledge is created. The contrapositive to your statement is that if no new knowledge is being created, then free speech doesn't matter; this is false.
        tdehnel 5y ago
        But new knowledge is always created as people solve problems which inevitably pop up. And the ethics of today are replaced with new ethics (knowledge) as people conjecture new ideas. This process goes one way. Free speech leads to progress. Using a contrapositive is invalid because I’m not making an equivocacy, I’m making a causal statement. Man drives car doesn’t necessitate that car drives man. And I’m not saying “ethics” are bad. Only that our current forms of them, like all forms of knowledge, will eventually be replaced by something better (see: all of history). Anyway, you dodged the question so I’ll try answering it for you: Your sense of ethic in relation to speech was created because people had the freedom to criticize the fact that ethics come from God/priests/kings/tribal elders/et. al and develop new, better forms. In this way, your and my ethical forms will be replaced in the future by something better.
        5y ago

SantalBlush 5y ago

It appears that you're conflating the notion of free speech with any speech whatsoever, and implying that if free speech rights weren't enforced, then we would have no speech and thus would have no society and no knowledge. This is demonstrably false according to plenty of historical evidence. It's simply nonsense.

tdehnel 5y ago
You got the wrong idea. I’m saying when we limit speech we risk limiting progress, not eliminating progress all together. The key is that we have no idea how we are limiting progress because the progress has yet to happen. But it will, as long as we tolerate new ideas and criticism (and not just the “right kind” of new ideas). We should always err on the side of more freedom rather than less, except in cases where there are imminent and likely illegal consequences.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  Again, this is absolutely not the main justification for free speech. As a thought experiment, suppose we had a way of knowing which speech would advance knowledge and which speech would hinder our knowledge; by your reasoning, it would then be ethical to silence the speech that we knew would hinder our knowledge, since the point of free speech is to improve our collective knowledge. This is wrong on its face. It's not what free speech is about. The concept exists because it's unethical to harm others over what they say.
  - tdehnel 5y ago
    The point is we don’t know. We will never know which new knowledge is created and which new problems will be caused. But only by allowing open and free trade of ideas will we be able to quickly solve them. But to take your point and run with it…why is “because it’s ethical” a worthy goal? That seems to be circular reasoning, and also relies on one concept of “ethical”. How do we define what is ethical?
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      You already used your own notion of "ethical" in your original comment when you implied that stifling the creation of new knowledge is bad. Did you really think that just because you didn't use the word "ethical" in your comment, that it is devoid of ethical statements? That's not how it works. By suggesting that free speech has a "purpose", you are making an ethical statement. >The point is we don’t know. That's really not the point. Your whole thesis depends on your assumption that new knowledge is created. The contrapositive to your statement is that if no new knowledge is being created, then free speech doesn't matter; this is false.
      - tdehnel 5y ago
        But new knowledge is always created as people solve problems which inevitably pop up. And the ethics of today are replaced with new ethics (knowledge) as people conjecture new ideas. This process goes one way. Free speech leads to progress. Using a contrapositive is invalid because I’m not making an equivocacy, I’m making a causal statement. Man drives car doesn’t necessitate that car drives man. And I’m not saying “ethics” are bad. Only that our current forms of them, like all forms of knowledge, will eventually be replaced by something better (see: all of history). Anyway, you dodged the question so I’ll try answering it for you: Your sense of ethic in relation to speech was created because people had the freedom to criticize the fact that ethics come from God/priests/kings/tribal elders/et. al and develop new, better forms. In this way, your and my ethical forms will be replaced in the future by something better.
        5y ago