Whats wrong with free speech absolutism?
Free speech is given lip-service but rarely is it followed to its logical conclusion: free speech absolutism. Its difficult to find anyone, past or present, who defends such a principle. Even what we might call the philosophical paragons of free speech would advise limits to it. JS Mill thought expression ought to be interfered with if it incited mischief. John Milton defended free speech from one side of the mouth while denying it to Catholics from the other. Wherever we look, there is some linguistic act worthy of being met with its suppression and punishment.
In my own readings, the notion of free speech absolutism is largely an American affair. The first amendment of the United States constitution seems to have bred some devotees to its unwavering and absolute language. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously contended that the constitution guaranteed absolute freedom of speech. The philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn also noticed that the first-amendment was unconditional, rightfully so, and applied it as the bedrock of democracy. No exception is indicated, therefore, none can be allowed. But at no point in American history have these rights not been violated. There are laws against slander, perjury, fraud, and so on.
Besides, all of this is politics, legalism, and applies only to government. Maybe the architects of the US constitution held some sort of view that could be called free speech absolutism, but as far as I can tell it has never found expression as a principle for the every man.
Whats wrong with free speech absolutism?
(For anyone who wishes to consider or to avoid my own opinion on the topic, the reason I would advocate free speech absolutism is as follows.)
***
If we could compile the sum total of human art into its own artifice there would be a gaping hole wherever the censors had their way with it. One could never know the beauty or ugliness of what once stood there, could have stood there, or what might occur should we chance to look on it again. All we can know is it has been sacrificed on some forgettable and long-forgotten whim of bigotry.
Such works and their creators are often censored for fear that they may produce a deleterious effect on society or some other group of peopleat least that is the censors justification. The Athenian youth, for instance, must be spared the influence of Socrates, whom will no doubt corrupt them. We can never know if the Athenian youth made it through their lives uncorrupted or whether the act of censorship served well to protect themfrankly, who cares?but we can intuit what was lost, or rather, stolen from posterity. One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing.
So it is with all acts of censorship; and this is why I contend that one act of censorship is worse for humanity than all the censored works of human history combined. Human art and knowledge is as fragile as the Herculaneum papyri, and humanity is left ignorant wherever any of it is destroyed or vandalized.
If one is concerned with human rights he might think twice about his desires to snuff out this or that speaker and his words. The censor violates an unfathomable number of rights with one act of intolerance: the right of the person to create her art, and the right of posterity to witness it. And in so doing he has stolen from humanity vast sums of human knowledge on some specious whim of bigotry, and as such is an agent of ignorance.
It is for these reasons I refuse to censor another.
In my own readings, the notion of free speech absolutism is largely an American affair. The first amendment of the United States constitution seems to have bred some devotees to its unwavering and absolute language. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously contended that the constitution guaranteed absolute freedom of speech. The philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn also noticed that the first-amendment was unconditional, rightfully so, and applied it as the bedrock of democracy. No exception is indicated, therefore, none can be allowed. But at no point in American history have these rights not been violated. There are laws against slander, perjury, fraud, and so on.
Besides, all of this is politics, legalism, and applies only to government. Maybe the architects of the US constitution held some sort of view that could be called free speech absolutism, but as far as I can tell it has never found expression as a principle for the every man.
Whats wrong with free speech absolutism?
(For anyone who wishes to consider or to avoid my own opinion on the topic, the reason I would advocate free speech absolutism is as follows.)
***
If we could compile the sum total of human art into its own artifice there would be a gaping hole wherever the censors had their way with it. One could never know the beauty or ugliness of what once stood there, could have stood there, or what might occur should we chance to look on it again. All we can know is it has been sacrificed on some forgettable and long-forgotten whim of bigotry.
Such works and their creators are often censored for fear that they may produce a deleterious effect on society or some other group of peopleat least that is the censors justification. The Athenian youth, for instance, must be spared the influence of Socrates, whom will no doubt corrupt them. We can never know if the Athenian youth made it through their lives uncorrupted or whether the act of censorship served well to protect themfrankly, who cares?but we can intuit what was lost, or rather, stolen from posterity. One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing.
So it is with all acts of censorship; and this is why I contend that one act of censorship is worse for humanity than all the censored works of human history combined. Human art and knowledge is as fragile as the Herculaneum papyri, and humanity is left ignorant wherever any of it is destroyed or vandalized.
If one is concerned with human rights he might think twice about his desires to snuff out this or that speaker and his words. The censor violates an unfathomable number of rights with one act of intolerance: the right of the person to create her art, and the right of posterity to witness it. And in so doing he has stolen from humanity vast sums of human knowledge on some specious whim of bigotry, and as such is an agent of ignorance.
It is for these reasons I refuse to censor another.
Comments (88)
The problem of having to make limitations on free speech is basically an integral part of a society based on democracy and free speech. Just where we draw the lines on these freedoms, just like what ought to be decided by the government / collective and what should be left to the individual citizen, is a question that every society and every generation has to try to solve and likely will find different solutions.
We can hope that the solutions found will be as close to the ideals as possible and self evident for the majority of people.
Freedom of expression is an important social value. So is e.g. security. Sometimes, social values conflict. Where they do, a rational society prioritizes what is good for it--usually some compromise that retains as much of the positive elements of each value as possible rather than prioritizing one particular value over all others. Can you explain why it should do otherwise? E.g. suppose we can retain 99.9% rather than 100% of free speech and simultaneously retain 100% security (just hypothetically), would that not be preferable to 100% free speech and 0% security? A free speech absolutist must say no, right? This is why the position is irrational in practice and is not followed to its logical conclusions.
Quoting Wikipedia
Justice Holmes cited the malicious shout of "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because there were some actual instances of this; the stampede for the doors resulted in many deaths, without any fire being present.
Free speech can, of course. set crowds on fire. Rioting (mob action with no one in control) has been triggered by free, fiery, speech. Or, sometimes, the utterance of falsehoods at a critical moment. If we don't like the rioters, then incitement is especially dangerous. If we are the rioters, then the spark which set off the riot is brilliant rhetoric.
Back in the 1960s I opposed the draft and the Vietnam war. I participated in demonstrations and spoke freely against the administration's policies. My speech wasn't throttled, but it was was routinely condemned as unAmerican or treasonous. The experience of speech suppression in private spaces (workplaces in particular) since Vietnam has led me to be on the side of unlimited free speech. Speech about socialism or communism has also been attacked.
Here's an example of workplace free speech suppression: My social service agency employer held a training session on a method of therapy they wanted staff to use. The presenter began by announcing that the staff were expected to accept what was taught that day without objection or discussion. I, being the usual suspect and designated problem person, duly objected.
The therapy method that was taught was not objectionable; it was the instruction to accept it without discussion that was unacceptable. Now, I didn't object in class. During the lunch break I commented that it wasn't my practice to accept instruction that wasn't open to objection or discussion. For that I came close to being fired.
At other work places, policies were announced with the add-on that there was to be no discussion about it. As a staff lawyer said, "There is no right to free speech in the workplace." Which, of course, is one of the critical places for free speech to occur.
Goodness. Seems antithetical to good community work which is supposed to encourage reflective practice and a diversity of approaches. I've seen some poor practice over the decades, but I've never had that experience in 33 years of working in the health and community sector. I recognise that organisations are not democracies and that inevitably decisions of leadership need to be made that not everyone is happy about, but the right to complain or provide feedback or explore alternatives should be available.
I think youre right. The overlap of rights causes a sort of schism. My belief in property rights, for example, suggests that people can restrict anothers free speech rights wherever speech occurs in their domain. In a way, its their free speech right to censor whomever they wish.
But no, I would prefer 100% free speech to 100% security. In my mind censorship threatens my security more so than anothers speech, and I have a hard time seeing how words can threaten security.
Thanks for writing that.
Not unlike your own experiences, Justice Holmes used the fire in a crowded theater theory to justify jailing dissidents who were protesting the draft. This goes to my point that censors will use the promise of future damage to justify present censorship. In his words, if speech represents a clear and present danger, it isnt protected, even if there is nothing clear nor present about what might happen. When will this danger occur? How will it manifest? This is basically why Holmes dictum was overturned years later.
Im still doubtful that speech causes the activity that people claim they do, or that upon hearing certain guttural sounds in certain combinations it will animate their body into performing this or that act. For example, when Mill suggests that speech and placards shown to an excited mob ought to be silenced because they lead to the harm of the corn dealer, violating the Harm Principle, I fail to see how the one necessarily leads to the other. It seems to me that the causes of any harms are the excited mob.
But then again maybe there is some sort of biological mechanism in some people that allows speech to push them around in some way, like sorcery. Who knows?
That's not the hypothetical choice I posed though.
Prefer which:
1) 100% free speech and 0% security
2) 99.9% free speech and 100% security
Just as a hypothetical, 1) or 2)?
Unless you have a hard time seeing how a wire tap on the Pentagon could threaten America's security, you don't really. And it's not hard to translate this into a free speech issue whereby a newspaper might be prevented from printing the results of such a wire-tap. Or should the U.S. allow its newspapers to give away America's nuclear secrets (again, hypothetically) just to get from 99.9% to 100% free speech as free speech absolutism would seem to demand? Is the obvious answer perhaps why almost no one takes the idea seriously though it may be fashionable to pay lip service to it?
Here you may also see why the contradiction runs in the opposite way to how you conceive it. An insistence on free speech absolutism could threaten to undermine the grounds of its own possibility. No security, no freedom. So, free speech absolutism is essentially incoherent and self-contradictory in practice.
Criminals rely on information, printed or spoken. There are information you don't want publicized. Identity protection is a form of censorship on what information can be published without consent of the individuals.
Quoting NOS4A2
Thank god! Can you imagine if you're a parent in the middle of a nasty divorce and lies are posted against you in order to damage your reputation? That would be horrible!
It isn't really that mysterious. Mill, per your post, spoke of the messages on placards setting off an excited mob. The biology involved is that of perception, thinking, emotional arousal, and group dynamics.
A group of bored people in a queue aren't going to turn to arson, rape, and bloody murder on the basis of a few placards. A group of people who are already stirred up, however, can be coalesced into a lethal mob by speakers wielding just the right set of provocative rhetoric. A group of rednecks, aimlessly milling around outside a Mississippi jail, could be provoked, by speech, to break into the jail and lynch a black prisoner. This has happened often enough.
On the afternoon of the George Floyd riots in Minneapolis, a group milling around the Third Precinct police station were being literally wound up by inside agitators. The speakers weren't creating discontent, they were fanning its flames. Not to long after I observed this, the riot which wrecked that part of town began.
In 1921, a mob burnt down the core of black Tulsa, OK. The whole area was incinerated, and around 300 black people were killed. There is a clear record of how this massacre developed over a quite short period of time (just a few days).
On the positive side, people can be moved to do good deeds or donate more money than they intended to by the deployment of inspired preaching. The short sentence, "This material will be on the final exam" will cause students who get good grades to pay extra attention to "this material".
As you suggest, words don't have magical effects. Language causes things to happen under certain conditions which exist prior to the language being deployed.
There is the principle of free speech; there is also the principle of prior restraint. The state can't forbid something from being said on the basis that it might possibly be libelous, criminal, or provocative.
I am probably a free-speech absolutist, in practice. I haven't heard anything recently that I thought should be censored. (Maybe 50 years ago I would have been willing to ban some speech.). I'm pretty opinionated, and other people have all kinds of ideas I think are really bad, dead wrong, and all-round stupid. I don't think they should be enjoined from saying what they have to say. I want to be able to say whatever is on mind, therefore, I'm in favor of free speech.
It's at the border of acceptable ideas where free speech becomes "dangerous". Some people are in favor of sexual relationships between adults and older children. Endorsing man-boy love is pretty much a reputational suicide in polite society. Homosexual activity was, once upon a time, "the love that dare not speak its name." Now it won't shut up. Being a Communist in the USA was verboten in the late 1940s and 1950s. Now it's not a hot topic.
There is no risk today in calling Donal Trump a fraud. What is acceptable changes over time, and with it the contested boundaries of free speech.
How?
By which I mean, it doesn't seem at all likely that the sum total of censored material would add up to anything very much of import. Mostly just abuse and weird opinions. There might be one or two gems in the rough, but that's an argument for more careful censoring, not for no censoring.
It'd be like arguing for no justice system on the grounds that occasionally an innocent person is condemned. No editing of books on the off-chance that a legitimate word is nonetheless edited out.
I would prefer 1 to 2. Then again Im not sure what kind of security I risk losing. The hypothetical seems to me to make no sense because the two are not mutually exclusive and one doesnt necessarily rise and fall in inverse proportion to the other.
Take a look at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum to get a sense of the vandals project. Voltaire, Montesquieu, John Locke, Hume, Balzacmore than a few gems were subject to ban. Look at the works thrown into Nazi fires or destroyed by Commie censors. Luckily these days publishers can stay ahead of it and with smuggling some works can reach others. I imagine that wasnt the case before the printing press. I can never know what Galileo or Bruno might have written if they were able to express themselves freely, but I guess we can be content enough with what was able to reach us.
The problem is in most cases we can never know what might have exised in that gaping hole. No matter what it is Id prefer to know and decide on my own accord rather than remain ignorant about it and let someone else decide for me.
Fire!!!
Firstly, we seem to very much have these works using our current system. You can't cite them in support of the fact that the system is losing some amazing works. We don't seem to have lost those. Censorship used to be terrible (mainly religiously motivated), it's much better now (despite having gotten considerably worse recently). You'd need to find, to support your argument, some great work of art or philosophy which was censored under our current system.
Secondly, even the works you cite are a tiny, tiny proportion of all the junk that's eliminated by censorship. What, seriously, do you think are the chances of someone publishing some world-changing insight via Twitter and it being lost in the pile of vitriol the censors otherwise trash? The idea is preposterous.
Thirdly, and most importantly, none of what you've said distinguishes an argument for no censorship from an argument for better censorship.
Quoting NOS4A2
We absolutely can know. We know (in the wider sense of 'we') what is censored. It's not some super-hidden military secret. The stuff is just kept off the main servers. Loads of people know what it contains, none of them have yet come forward with a new approach to unified theory or a cure for cancer.
Quoting NOS4A2
Someone else always decides for you. Unless all human thought is presented to you on a searchable database, then someone else is making decisions about what you'll encounter. Censorship just places it out of everyone's reach. Hundreds of other factors place it out of your reach.
This is just circular ideology. You argue that free speech is holy and it's therefore necessarily sinful to censor, so it's unnecessary that we calculate the positives and negatives of a particular act of censorship, but we can also just presume (or whatever "intuit" means here) the censorship would be harmful had we actually deciphered the harms and benefits.
Stepping outside this intuition based system, and turning toward an actual empirical analysis, it would seem that (1) there are in fact instances where the world would have been a better place without the spread of misinformation, and (2) we can't absolve ourselves of the obligation to find those instances and censor if necessary, even if it means we might violate some right we have declared as untouchable.
Ok, well you have bitten the bullet. But it seems then you'd want to allow newspapers to publish a country's nuclear secrets even if it meant, in the extreme case, that country's annihilation. I find that odd. Why would absolute free speech be preferable in this case to not being dead?
Quoting NOS4A2And you're not using the promise of beauty had censors stopped what they're doing? Look at the above statements coming from you -- you against the censors or those who would want to limit free speech.
Let's be honest and say, the view of absolute free speech (which includes publication) is not sustainable because there are measurable harms that we could use in the study of what-if anyone can publish any information they want to publish without consent from anyone.
But if you're only talking about literature and art, then say so. Do not use "free speech absolutism" because that's gonna be challenged to the fullest.
That of course is a mouthful, and easily followed by the question of, "Who determines what is true, harmful, and a selfish benefit?" This cannot be any one individual, and it cannot be mob rule either. This must be proven in a court of law with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond that, say what you will.
But to a finer point, why have any restrictions at all? Nos, you tend to have a supremely optimistic viewpoint of humanity. Rightly so, you note that bad actors are a minority of citizens in many situations. I do not know your viewpoint on this so I will ask, "Are you aware of the destruction even one person with ill intent can cause?"
In my experience in history and in life, one bad actor can ruin a carefully constructed environment of trust and good will. It takes days to build a building, but one day for a bomber to bring it all down. In my viewpoint, societal restrictions in general are not because the majority of people need to be managed, but to minimize and prevent the severity of the rare bad actors involved. Can an oppressive government cause more harm then one bad actor? Unquestioningly. But in general a place with no governance, screening, or rules will inevitably have to contend with the inevitable bad actor that causes ruin.
The same goes for speech. Governments for years have used propaganda in enemy states to sow discord in other states and make them unstable. Liars peddle harmful and shoddy products to consumers that cause permanent damage and death, then disappear to another area of the world. The reality is that people are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings who look for "reasons" to back their emotional beliefs. This makes lies a powerful weapon to use against people. Should we allow this unrestricted, I would argue any society would inevitably collapse in time due to a few bad actors. So from my viewpoint, some restrictions are needed for these reasons. What about yourself?
I always face the insoluble problem of who I would give the right to decide what I can or cannot say and read, as if I was a child or student. I cannot come up with anyone or any group of people, dead or alive, who are fit for the task. So the Better Censorship would invariably be none at all.
Censorship always boils down to this: I dont want you to say this-or-that and I dont want others to hear it. It is the concern of an unwelcome and meddlesome third party who has neither the character nor knowledge to know what others can or cannot say, or what they can and cannot hear. All they possess is their own sentiment, and that counts for little in these matters.
Measurable harms? Like what?
The spread of misinformation so fearful are we of such a spread that we will give the power to censor misinformation to those who are historically and empirically the greatest progenitors of it.
There is nothing empirical about counterfactual thinking, Im afraid. But for the sake of argument, your intuition that the world would have been better had such-and-such speech been censored still involves the violation of countless rights, whereas education, counter-information, the truth etc. might have sufficed to make the world a better place instead. There are other means to achieve the same desired ends without resorting to tyranny, no matter how enlightened it pretends to be. So if justice and human rights is of any concern at all one might need to put in a little more effort.
As is clear from most of what is censored, the answer to this question is 'virtually anyone'. Censorship is mostly about removing obvious crap and anything accidentally removed which isn't crap is very unlikely to be the next Beethoven or a cure for cancer, so the person chosen doesn't even have to be very good at it.
Quoting NOS4A2
Nonsense. The vast majority of people find the same sorts of things offensive. That's why being offensive works, because your audience is likely to reach in a predictable way. It's easy to spot offensive material and remove it.
And if you're one if the rare ones, if you're not offended by stuff most people are offended by, then all that will happen is you'll miss out on a few jokes and some opinion pieces. So what? It's absurd to kick up such a fuss about a few comments you might otherwise have liked to have read.
You were, on the other thread, attempting to defend a compassionate individualism. you're really not advancing that cause any by complaining about a handful of off-colour jokes you'll miss out on because of censorship. There are far bigger issues to worry about for Christ's sake.
I have given no such right because I do not know an answer to the question of who knows better than I do what I can or cannot read and write. Maybe you do, but one glance at popular opinion or any other authority shows to me that "virtually anyone" isn't a sufficient answer; it's an obsequious one.
What you find offensive says nothing about what I would find offensive. Your sentiments pertain to you and you only. "Most people" and other appeals to the populace are utterly unconvincing especially on the matter of who gets to decide what I can or cannot say and read. I find many things offensive but I do not violate everyone's basic human rights every time I secrete a little cortisol and start furrowing my brow.
I get it, though, if human rights are not a concern there are certainly more pressing issues.
So what? That's the question you keep dodging. Why do you expect anyone to give a fuck about whether you miss out on a few non-pc jokes you might not have found offensive but others do?
I'm not arguing that anyone knows what you'll find offensive. I'm not arguing that the censor we choose will get it right all the time. I'm asking you why it matters.
Because we're neither children nor slaves. Such behavior is unjust and stupid.
You've not even begun to make a case from either justice or stupidity. All you've told us so far is that you'd prefer not.
If an institution censors offensive content, most of its customers/clients will be pleased. So doing so hardly seems stupid.
If an institution censors someone's output against their will, they will suffer a very minor inconvenience to benefit many others. So doing so hardly seems unjust either.
If your conception of 'justice' is just that you get to do whatever you want, unimpeded, then its your conception that's at fault here.
An extreme conclusion without exception is not a logical conclusion.
Should deliberate misinformation be accepted? Arguing that we have or should such a "right" is a blind, question begging ideology.
One problem with free speech absolutism is that it would create its own contradiction. Someone with power over media could destroy the free speech of someone else publishing false information about an everyday citizen. For example, accusations of being a pedophile. With the right button pushing you might not just marginalize and silence that person, but keep them from work or even inspire their murder.
The utility of censorship and the benefit to those who practice it is without question. The government and its supporters no doubt benefit from the censorship of the press. The church and its acolytes no doubt benefit from the censorship of heretics and blasphemers. Pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders no doubt benefit from the censorship of criticism.
But Im no utilitarian. In fact I am against it, at least wherever an individual is subject to unbridled calculations for the sake of anothers utility. Id rather a minority does not suffer so that some arbitrary greater number might enjoy some vague and incalculable benefit at some point in the near or distant future.
Do you accept everything you read? It doesnt follow that because one reads something he invariably accepts it. It doesnt follow that because a kind of information is unacceptable that we must give someone the power to determine what is and isnt acceptable, and to and punish any deviation from it. That leads to State Truth.
Disinformation is now being criminalized and leads directly to the jailing of journalists and dissidents and regular internet users, for instance in Greece, Egypt, Singapore, Malaysia. So the question, I guess, is already settled by the authorities. But were adults; each of us already has the ability to accept information or not, and we dont need to censor anything in order to do so.
So if me arguing that everyone should have the same right as Article 19 of the UNDHR is a blind, question begging ideology, maybe someone can give me an argument why a government or some other group of people should have the right to determine what others can say and hear.
Copyright, patents, identity protection. Violations of any of these result in financial loss, security of personal information, and violation of personal rights.
Again, what you'd 'rather' is not an argument from either stupidity or injustice. It is not stupid of institutions not to provide you with the service you'd prefer, nor is it unjust of them. So you've not answered the question. Why does it matter?
Individuals are perfectly capable of looking at the data and drawing their own conclusions. It's specifically this that the censor desires to circumvent, likely because they know that when the individual looks for themselves they will arrive at conclusions that are undesirable to the censor.
Censorship pollutes the information environment by eroding transparency and neutrality. It also undermines the individual's propensity for critical thought.
Furthermore, censorship and propaganda go hand in hand, and for everything you're not allowed to hear there's a convenient government narrative that you are expected to copy paste instead. Today's 'misinformation' age is case and point.
A more pleasant discourse environment for most people, especially those vulnerable to abuse.
Quoting Tzeentch
Agreed, but censorship is not limited to data. It extends to opinions and expression.
Quoting Tzeentch
Again I completely agree, but if you want to make an argument that "all Jews are twats" has anything whatsoever to do with transparency or critical thought then I really don't think you understand either.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not really. It's like arguing that because the chef added too much salt to the soup we should never add salt to soup. Obviously, like any human activity, censorship can be done really badly. It's ridiculous to suggest that because it can be done badly it ought not be done at all.
To emphasize, censorship (just like free speech) to me is about ideas, and not arbitration of interpersonal disputes.
In my opinion, slandering, calls to violence, intentional deception etc. are not primarily about the sharing of ideas, and having laws against those things is not a form of censorship to me.
If people want to openly discuss nazism or racist ideas, they should be free to do so, whether they agree or disagree with those ideas. However, especially with these types of ideas the line between discussing ideas and threatening to harm people should be closely guarded.
Censoring antisemitism is actually an interesting case study. There might be reasons for why it should be censored, but at the same time there are people who will cynically abuse that censorship for their own gain.
If you want an example of that, take a look at some of the blowback John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt received for producing an extremely balanced and nuanced article and book on the Israel Lobby. Their works were well-researched and full of legitimate worries concerning the role of the Israel Lobby in American politics. The lobby then started a smear campaign against Mearsheimer and Walt to destroy their credibility and label them as antisemitic, which they obviously aren't.
Because of the two men's impeccable record this smear campaign failed, but there are many who believe the fear of being hounded by such smears is the reason why the lobby isn't investigated more.
What are we to make of this? Censorship laws which, lets assume, were adopted with the best intentions become another tool of power for the already-powerful.
In a nutshell, in my opinion people should be free to discuss any idea in the context of a civilized debate. People with extreme ideas should even be encouraged to enter the crucible of public debate. In that sense I believe free speech is absolute, and censorship should never be allowed.
Ah. Then we probably disagree far less than it would at first seem. I include all that under the heading 'censorship'.
What's dangerous here is that those who want to do exactly what we've seen recently, namely...
Quoting Tzeentch
..., are helped, not hindered, by extremist calls for free-speech absolutism. They can point to the very obvious flaws (of the wider sense) as justification and thereby dodge the discussion that needs to be had.
My main concern overlaps considerably with yours, but in my view, extreme positions like @NOS4A2 presents here are harming that concern.
What I believe is happening is that governments have stopped being reliable information brokers.
Not only have they been developing and spreading their own narratives, but they seem to have been doing everything in their power to ensure their narrative is the only one you hear. Propaganda and censorship.
The most notable examples are the covid-19 response and the Ukraine war.
This is what I believe is the prime cause for the pollution of the information environment:
1. Governments develop agendas that are not in the best interest of their population.
2. To sell these agendas to their population they develop narratives.
3. These narratives cannot stand up to scrutiny, so governments avoid and discourage public debate on these issues.
And here's the kicker:
4. Because governments refuse to let their narratives be challenged in public debate, conflicting narratives receive in large parts the same preferential treatment of not being discussed publicly, creating a perfect environment for misinformation to thrive.
So in that sense I agree with the "free speech absolutists" that the remedy is more free and open discourse, and less censorship. But governments are deathly afraid what the consequences will be for the narratives they have so diligently cultivated.
It is not a question of what I do or do not accept, but of what is widely accepted. By putting it in these terms you have demonstrated why thinking in terms only of individuals leaves a political or social blind spot
Quoting NOS4A2
Article 19 says nothing about deliberate misinformation. Article 29 does say:
If misinformation leads to people acting in a way that interferes with the rights and freedoms of others then there are limits on such speech. What is blind and a question begging ideology is not the protection of free speech but the inability to see that it must have limits. The failure to set such limits can lead directly to actions that destroy the rights and freedoms of others.
I don't want to overstate the disagreements, I basically agree with what you've written bar a couple of points. The first is the reason I'm opposed to free speech absolutism. I agree with the quoted proposition we need "more free and open discourse, and less censorship". Less censorship is not the same as no censorship.
Pushing for less censorship (as opposed to none) is not only more likely to receive support, but has a better, more persuasive argument in its favour.
It's pretty easy for anyone sane to see that Facebook censoring the British Medical Journal on Covid was nothing short of propaganda. It's much harder to see how censoring a Nazi spreading Holocaust denial is quite so unsavory in motive.
Secondly, a bit off topic, but I'd add a point zero to your description of the process. The government's censorship has tracked precisely the enrichment of those industries with the deepest lobbying pockets (pharmaceuticals and arms). It's their drive for profit which initiates the whole thing. Governments don't just decide to have an agenda out of the blue that just so happens to support their biggest donors. They're paid to do it.
Neither does censorship.
Censors don't have mind-reading devices. They can't divine intent.
What censors censor is stuff they believe is wrong. Other people posting it might differ in their belief.
Citing Article 29 is exactly the reason given for literally every act of fascism ever. No fascist has ever come to power on the back of "this is going to be shit for you lot, but I'll get rich". Without fail every fascist program has been "the freedoms we restrict now are for the best".
We need more (much more) than one government's say so that it's for the best.
On certain topics like holocaust denial it's not the motives I question, but censorship as a means.
If topics are banned from public discourse, the sentiments that underlie them won't disappear. They will move underground to echo chambers where, without the presence of a healthy debate, they might actually gain traction (I'm pretty sure that's how radicalization tends to work). Further, the use of force to silence these groups may affirm them in their ideas and create more resentment.
Of course, when societies are presented with repulsive ideas, the first reaction tends to be to ostracize the people who express these ideas. That's where the impulse of censorship comes from. I think that is a fundamental mistake, because we do not live in the Middle Ages anymore, and we cannot chase people out of the village. They stay in the "village", likely a little more extremist and resentful as a result of our own actions.
I stand by the idea that the best way to deradicalize extremists is through engagement and making them part of the discussion.
Quoting Isaac
Great point.
It doesnt follow that because someone reads something he invariably accepts it. It doesnt follow that because a kind of information is unacceptable that we must give someone the power to determine what is and isnt acceptable, and to punish any deviation from it. And those you task to protect you from disinformation and punish deviation from State Truth are often the greatest progenitors of it.
There are countless other solutions to misinformation that dont involve the willy-nilly violation of rights as your solutions have, but censorship is still the go-to method. It makes no sense, in my opinion.
"Free Speech Absolutist" is a binary category, which I don't see you fitting into according to your clarification. I think @NOS4A2 probably does. The implication is he would literally give his life and those of others not to compromise in any way whatsoever on free speech (0% security, publicise the nuclear secrets etc. Let it be so!). He seems to consider it a sacred or holy principle rather than anything ultimately relatable to practical or pragmatic goals. That's bizarre to me. However, there's a sense in which he fits Zizek's ethical subject for whom true ethics consists in reconstituting norms in a way that should seem bizarre. That angle might be pushing it, but his position is crazy enough for me to have kind of a grudging respect for.
Youre right on that. F?at j?stitia ruat cælum is a precious principle to me.
Well, you've certainly bitten the bullet on it re your position here. So, that's fair.
When the NYT released the Pentagon papers the government argued that to release them was a threat to national security. It turns out this was hot air, as are most claims that violence and death will befall us should someone release top secret information. In most cases it leads to the embarrassment of those who sought to keep it hidden. So Im not too worried.
What do you hope to gain by refuting a claim I did not make? Not everyone who has watched Tucker Carlson invariably accepts whatever he says, but the fact of the matter is this that many do.
Quoting NOS4A2
Such as? Suppose the tobacco industry launched a new campaign falsely telling people that the latest and most accurate scientific research has determined that cigarettes not only do not cause any harm but that they promote good health in children and adults. Is this a matter of "State Truth"? What are just a few of the many solutions? Or do you think no solutions are necessary because free speech should be absolute?
If someone finds your personal financial and health information, should they be allowed to make it public? What about other personal information such as your viewing and purchasing habits? What if they perpetuate lies instead if that information is not interesting enough?
My point is that it is unjust and illogical to deny the right to to receive and impart information to all people at all times when only some people at some times are prone to accept it. If some people at some times are prone to to accept it it is unjust and illogical to give some people at some times the power to deny such rights for everyone.
Nor does it follow that because a kind of information is unacceptable we must give someone the power to determine what is and isnt acceptable, and to punish any deviation from it. Those who we task to protect us from disinformation and punish deviation from State Truth, Church Truth, Corporate Truth, are often the greatest progenitors of it.
Truth is really the only counter to falsity in every case. For this we need more information, more data, more debate, more education, more transparency, not less of it. The more and more people rely on a group of people to tell them what is true or false, like a government or corporation or church, the less and less they become able to figure it out for themselves, only compounding the problem to begin with.
Do you accept that not all "information" is fact based? What if such "information" is used to falsely and unjustly accuse a group of people, thus leading to exclusion or persecution of those people?
Quoting NOS4A2
You offer up education as part of the solution, but it is often part of the problem. Formal education is :
Quoting NOS4A2
More often than not, led by a government or church. Education is often used to perpetuate prejudices. It is a form of censorship. It is a point of contention as to who decides what is and is not to be taught.
More data is not helpful when we are already confronted with more data that we can process and evaluate. When the data provided includes a preponderance of lies and falsehoods we don't need more data but more data that is correct and much less that is not.
Corporations are a main source of information, but as a corporate entity some news sources are far more concerned with profit and power than with truth. But we must rely on these sources. To say that people need to figure it out for themselves is to kick the can down the road. Most people rely on a limited number of sources for information. While they bear some responsibility for how well they are informed, the sources of provide the news also bear some responsibility for correctly informing their viewers.
We also know that some verification is proper, since we read the local news, and we know that Maple steet is really really closed when Maple steet is reported to be closed. Or we know there is a war in the Ukraine, because we talk to non-news agents (immigrants) from Ukraine, who tell us there is a war.
But that's scanty information.
A person therefore has two paths of belief (Actually, three):
1. Accept the news media's reports as true.
2. Reject the news media's reports as true.
Either way, it's the sole decision of the individual. There is no arguing with him, because either way the paths are undecidable for dependable truth value. From the individual's point of view.
Therefore what I get out of your post, Fooloso4, and I think yours is an unassailable opinion, is that we live possibly in a world we don't know anything about. Never mind the sub-atomic particles, or the far-flung reaches of space. We have no verified clue what happens around us.
Maybe we have a world view, that supports the opposite theory, namely, that information is solid. After all, we wear plastic for clothing, have iPhones that are more intelligent than us, and we watch movies that are not easy to make. We all KNOW that a hundred, a thousand, and a million years ago things were different.
But we know that because of information. Which is given to us. Only historians are in the know and anthropologists, who are sure (sort of) what had gone one then. We, the people, just believe what they tell us: what the biologists, historians, anthropologists tell us.
---------------------
In conclusion: we have the same chance from our point of view to be completely uninformed, somewhat informed, and completely informed. We have no way of deciding which; it is our temperament that will tell us which version to subscribe to in the degree of our belief of non-.
In conclusion: It is freaking me out that I live in a world where all the truths I learned in my life have been generated by conspiracy theorists
(Corollary: Probably that's why to communists only communism is the true social form, to USA people it's only the capitalism, and in forced labour camps it is only the dream of a good meal and a proper night's of sleep that is the best government type.)
-----------------------
I completely agree with it, Fooloso4, and I am scaring myself to death here in small doses.
Presupposing that man is fallible leads me to conclude that he should not have the power to determine and enforce what only the infallible ever could.
Both free speech and suppression will be abused, but its a question about what abuse is preferable. The distortion of truth is not the same as its suppression, and though free speech leaves room for the former it expressly denies the latter, whereas censorship has and will be put to the service of both.
I have no idea what this means. Truth is only useful as a concept if all misrepresentations count as the opposite of it. We do not possess a version of events beyond attempts to recount them. Reporting a false narrative is often done for the purpose of suppressing another.
Problem is that many people don't want the truth and are interested in only power. Or see truth only as a powerplay, something that is used to get power. In fact, both woke activists and conspiracy theorists don't care so much about the truth as they see it as a tool of power. They have an agenda. Populism and conspiracy theorists are fighting against the evil elites, who dominate media and try to control the truth. Someone could assume that they would aspire then for an objective truth. Not so, especially if the truth is that actually those cabals don't have as much power as thought. That would be heresy and working for the enemy! It's not a debate, it's a competition who rules. And the post-modernists? I think you already know.
Never underestimate the lure of tribalism and all it's adverse effects.
It pleases me that you think my opinion is unassailable, so I am somewhat reluctant to say that what you attribute to me is not my opinion. My point is that the truth is a standard that must be protected. Absolute freedom of speech does not protect truth and may threaten it.
Fox News is being sued for false allegations against Dominion Voting Systems. The power to determine that they repeatedly and knowingly lied does not require infallibility. Freedom of speech in an inadequate defense. The damage has been done but something can be done to curtail future abuses. But perhaps you regard this as an abuse of power, that Fox should be free to deceive the public with impunity.
What? You said that Fox is "being sued" and that "the damage has been done". So the system you're describing established falsity after the allegations have been made (and done their damage). What different system do you imagine can be put in place to establish the falsity of a claim before it is published (and the damage done)?
Legal action cannot undo what has been done but when sources are held legally responsible and fines significant then they will be more cautious and diligent in establishing the truth of their accusations and allegations.
That doesn't follow.
Given that your reasoning appears based on a utilitarian principle, a simple argument against free speech absolutism is that there is at least once case where more is gained than lost by censorship. Perhaps the sharing of military intelligence with a foreign nation is one such example.
Really? So this sort of legal action is new? Has some law changed in the US that I've not noticed?
Because otherwise, history pretty much undermines your theory. It has always been possible to be sued for publishing false information (of various sorts) it doesn't seem to have held anyone back yet.
The issue under discussion is whether there should be deterrents. The effectiveness of deterrents remains to be seen.
https://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html
Rugged individualists have a difficulty understanding the "co" in communication. Communication, which speech is a variety of, has a function. The function is social, it is to bring individuals together and allow them to coordinate in just the same way that the nervous system allows communication within the individual and allows coordination of the limbs. It is sadly apparent when the nervous system sends wrong information; shakes and spasms, phantom limb pain, and so on.
Thus speech is always a cooperative social enterprise and is liable to go wrong in various ways. Untimely, false, or incomprehensible, information prevents appropriate responses and coordination of action. Snake oil salesmen, pranksters, dishonest politicians, coercive controllers, and others of that ilk exploit the communal communication system of language for their own purposes that are manipulative rather than communicative. This manipulation has a high social and individual cost and no doubt everyone has suffered that cost at times. Ultimately, the loss of trust in the language itself results in a disengagement from social life and this is apparent in politics. Thus free speech that allows lies the same protection as truth is corrosive to democracy in particular.
So I am a truth and honesty absolutist, not a lies and bullshit absolutist. And the question arises as to who one can trust to sort the lies from the truths. One has at any rate to trust oneself, and then one has to trust oneself to know who to trust. And the more that lies abound. the less there will be trust. If there is no trust, there is no meaning, and I have been wasting my time pressing keys for nothing. But I trust some will understand.
So government employees ought be allowed to share military intelligence with foreign nations?
Yes, and the first complaint raised is that the deterrents have disadvantages. So their advantages need be weighed against those. Effectiveness therefore cannot be avoided.
If you're saying that legal recourse in the face of demonstrable lies is the full extent of deterrence then I might be inclined to agree, but that's not censorship is it? Nor is it exhaustive of, or even most common among, the tools for suppression of free speech.
Irony, satire, myth, caricature, sarcasm, metaphor, hyperboledeception is a function of language just like any other articulated sound from the mouth.
There is neither truth nor honesty without falsity and lies. You cannot find any of the former without reference to the latter. Should either be eradicated what would we hold the other against? What happens to trial and error? What happens to hypothesis? Art? All thats left is dogma.
It sounds like youre more of a social harmony absolutist, and Id wager you would proffer lies so long as the group as a whole coordinated to your standards. So it is with collectivism.
The distortion of the truth, ie. lying, is different than the suppression of truth, ie. censorship. One can be straightened out while the other simply vanishes.
I agree with you again. What I got from your post that is of concern to me is that attaining that truth via information by the media is an epistemological nightmare. Did you not say that, too?
For a more expanded explanation of this view (if you need it) please see my previous post, the one that you replied to. Thanks.
I am not arguing in favor of a skeptical nightmare. What I am arguing is that more information is not the solution to misinformation because that additional information too may be misinformation. What is needed is more reliable information, more factual information.
That is not true. I am presenting a view that is open to challenge and might be wrong, it is a hypothesis. But it is not wrong because it rules out fiction, because it does no such thing. It only rules out presenting fiction as fact.
Yes, I think so. Secret government is necessarily undemocratic government. That is to say, if there is a feeling in the workforce that they do not want to share it, then they won't, but the law should not be involved in the 'suppression of truth'. Where I think I would draw a line is at personal information, some protection for the individual's privacy seems reasonable. Though largely unobtainable alas.
Luckily one of the highest civil servants shared my view. The first step I suggested, and the most difficult, was, how do I do my job that I can freely talk about it when having drinks with a friend? Eg., on an everyday basis I shouldn't be working in such a way that nobody except my boss is allowed to know what I'm doing. That's asking for trouble with respect to accountability.
Second, we changed the process, instead of resisting information requests, we started calling those who submitted them. "Hey, you're asking for a ton of information, I think we can all save time. If you tell me what you're trying to find out, I'll try to collect everything that's relevant to it and then if you still feel things are missing, just give me call, OK?" Handling time of information requests has been halved as a result. Whether the first point has made collecting information easier I don't know because it's hard to measure. Alas, that's only one ministry and the high level civil servant that thought it was important has left.
... And that is the very thing that a receptor unit (human) of media information can't check other than comparing it with different media. Ultimately the little man has to decide whom to believe, and that decision is not possible to make reasonably.
I know you don't believe in an information-dystopia, but you described its workings beautifully. I never thought of it, but your post opened my eyes to the fact that the everyman basically has to throw himself upon a belief in the media's message, and that is just as possible to lead him to the truth as to lies. And he, the person, can't tell the difference, there is no way he can.
In a very strong way this the same dilemma that the solipsism and the unknowability of reality presents. As you're a fan of Socrates, it may be shown to you that in several layers removed it's the same dilemma of the shadow figures on the cave walls.
You must have missed this one. Interested in your response.
I do recognize that there is a problem. I also agree that this is not a new problem. A troubling new development, however, is "deep fakes". This technology raised serious questions about the reliability of recorded evidence.
Im not a utilitarian.
The argument was epistemological and ethical. We can never know if an act of censorship protected us from the ill effects we were told would befall us should no act of censorship occur. In the case of Socrates, we can never know if his censorship saved the youth from corruption after all. So we are unable to judge whether the act of censorship was morally good. What we do know is the act of censorship itself, in this case killing a man and violating his most basic rights, so we can judge that it was morally bad.
This seems like an appeal to ignorance. Perhaps something can be morally good even if we do not, or cannot, know that it is morally good.
Quoting NOS4A2
Then why, in a defence of free speech, did you say one can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing. That seems a quite obvious utilitarian defence. If youre not a utilitarian then this cost-benefit analysis is a non sequitur.
Quoting NOS4A2
As I said before, it doesnt follow from the fact that it was wrong to kill Socrates for the things he said that therefore any and all censorship is wrong.
You cannot say whether the act saved us or not from what you promised it would. Without this knowledge how can you say it was morally good?
I said it because Im confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever had been gained by his silencing. We have the act itself, the murder of Socrates, and thus the loss of his creativity and production, so no chance of him conversing about virtue any longer. What we dont have is any proof that his silencing led to the better world that the censor promised us. The censor was the utilitarian.
By saying it? I might not know it to be true, but something being true doesnt depend on me knowing it.
I dont know that aliens exist, but I can say that they do and I might be right.
Quoting NOS4A2
So? If you follow this up with therefore it was wrong then youre a utilitarian. If you dont follow it up with therefore it was wrong then it isnt an argument in favour of free speech absolutism.
Im wondering how the censor can know and be confident that his act of censorship was the right thing to do.
It was morally wrong to murder Socrates and morally right to leave him alive because murdering someone just in case is morally wrong, because violating his rights just in case is morally wrong, not because leaving him alive produces a greater good for a greater number.
You did phrase it as a utilitarian argument. Maybe you made a whoopsie. But I take the logic of your position as deontological not utilitarian, i.e. "It is wrong in principle, regardless of circumstances, to ever compromise on free speech." Another way of saying free speech is the greatest good. No need to dress it up.
We can quibble about one sentence quoted out of context but I think it remains pretty clear if the rest is considered.
OK, so how is this a defence of free speech absolutism? Not all cases of censorship are killing someone just in case. Some censorship is imprisonment after divulging military secrets which resulted in the death of spies.
Wherever the right to life, speech, to hear, is violated to serve some distant end, the censor is engaging in morally wrong behavior. Thats why I added, and you removed, because violating his rights just in case is morally wrong. If were going to quote out of context, can we at least leave in the entire sentence?
As for military secrets, Im not sure violating ones obligations to ones employer, stealing their information, and giving it to their enemies constitutes an act of speech. We need to be careful to distinguish between conduct and speech.
I was specifically considering verbally sharing information, so no documents.
Quoting NOS4A2
Then youre begging the question as youre trying to argue that we do have an absolute right to free speech. You cant just assert that we have such a right and that censorship violates it.