"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[ahhell]

So, maybe I missed it but is there any evidence that banning the dissemination of ideas actually does curtail their spread. As far as I know Pro-NAZI propaganda is illegal in a lot of places that none-the-less still have NAZI's.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think distinction between "X speech exists" and "X speech is in the common public discourse" has to be made.

There's a fundamental difference between an idea that exists in a society if you go looking for it and an idea that is actually part of a society's normal, day to day discourse.

 

[uke2se]

It seems to me that someone asking if there are historical examples have missed the fact that social media is a fairly new phenomenon. We are in uncharted waters, and we're dealing the social equivalent of a hydrogen bomb.

 

[JoeMorgue]

To be fair I don't think I've ever been more wrong about anything then about my hope that near universal instantaneous access to essentially the collected sum of all human knowledge would make being "wrong" almost impossible.

Yeah... missed the mark on that one a bit.

 

[Belz...]

It seems to me that someone asking if there are historical examples have missed the fact that social media is a fairly new phenomenon. We are in uncharted waters, and we're dealing the social equivalent of a hydrogen bomb.

Yeah the internet and its effects will take a long time to properly evaluate. But we still have to be able to predict things and how to react to problems on the internet now. It's just a question of how we go about doing it.

To be fair I don't think I've ever been more wrong about anything then about my hope that near universal instantaneous access to essentially the collected sum of all human knowledge would make being "wrong" almost impossible.

Yeah... missed the mark on that one a bit.

I made the exact same mistake.

 

[Stout]

Promoting the Rohingya genocide. I know it won in the marketplace of ideas but really that shouldn't be the be all and end all of morality.

In light of that and given the recent hysteria over social media, Facebook would be very wise to keep an eye on those Taylor Swift fan pages. Today it's T-Swizzle but tomorrow it could be.....nazis

 

[Thermal]

Just chiming in to restate that they should be allowed to have their platform. Let them be seen and heard. Makes them easier to identify.

If they are restricted to clandestine sites, their exposure to each other becomes a closed echo chamber, and reinforces their beliefs. Let them see themselves and their ideological comrades ridiculed openly. Let every new potential recruit see how society what large thinks of them. The hard core haters won't be moved one way or the other, and will still go on sociopathic sprees; they will with or without facebook. But the less cuckoo may be persuaded that the views are fundamentally sick when sunlight shines on them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Just chiming in to restate that they should be allowed to have their platform. Let them be seen and heard. Makes them easier to identify.

If they are restricted to clandestine sites, their exposure to each other becomes a closed echo chamber, and reinforces their beliefs. Let them see themselves and their ideological comrades ridiculed openly. Let every new potential recruit see how society what large thinks of them. The hard core haters won't be moved one way or the other, and will still go on sociopathic sprees; they will with or without facebook. But the less cuckoo may be persuaded that the views are fundamentally sick when sunlight shines on them.

Of course it also makes recruitment harder as it means that the people need to start by going looking to be nazis.

 

[Darat]

Yeah but they don't have the ability to downright call your speech unacceptable at a drop of a hat, regardless of what you actually say, do they?







I agree with you. But the fact is that many will disagree on what constitutes a threat to it. Actions are easier to get into this set than words.

Words are an action. They are not something that stands apart from other actions we do.

 

[Darat]

Shh, don't tell Tank!







Which process is that? I'm not American, by the way, but the US has usually been pretty loathe to limit speech too much.

Whatever your country has been using, Canada is not that new of a country so it must have developed mechanisms to decide what can and can't be expressed.

 

[Darat]

So, maybe I missed it but is there any evidence that banning the dissemination of ideas actually does curtail their spread. As far as I know Pro-NAZI propaganda is illegal in a lot of places that none-the-less still have NAZI's.

I've also often wondered when we have conversations about this issue do we have any evidence to support the cliches and claims made for freedom of speech, e.g.. expose to the daylight, marketplace of ideas and so on. They sound good but does the evidence stack up.

 

[Belz...]

Words are an action. They are not something that stands apart from other actions we do.

Yes but I'm sure you understand that what someone says and what someone does are two different, if related, things. Saying "well you can't do X" is one thing, but saying "well, you can't say X" is quite a bit more slippery.

Whatever your country has been using, Canada is not that new of a country so it most have developed mechanisms to decide what can and can't be expressed.

Indeed. What's your exact point or question?

 

[Thermal]

Of course it also makes recruitment harder as it means that the people need to start by going looking to be nazis.

Which they would be doing anyway.

Ridicule is the answer. The Blues Brothers had it right. No wannabe white supremacist wants to be publicly ridiculed

 

[ahhell]

Which they would be doing anyway.

Ridicule is the answer. The Blues Brothers had it right. No wannabe white supremacist wants to be publicly ridiculed

My understanding is this it what happened to the second klan in the 30s. The superman radio show ran a series in which superman battled the klan but the klan came across as incredibly silly and childish. On the other hand there was a high profile sex/political scandal involving the Klan around the same time, both may have contributed to the collapse of that version of the Klan.

I've also often wondered when we have conversations about this issue do we have any evidence to support the cliches and claims made for freedom of speech, e.g.. expose to the daylight, marketplace of ideas and so on. They sound good but does the evidence stack up.

It is a reasonable question, I would just err toward more free speech in the absence of evidence so I'm not especially concerned regarding that side of the coin.

I am not aware of compelling evidence one way or the other.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I'm not promoting anything at all.

I'm just saying that your grandchildren will be brown.

What makes you think that?

It seems to me that someone asking if there are historical examples have missed the fact that social media is a fairly new phenomenon. We are in uncharted waters, and we're dealing the social equivalent of a hydrogen bomb.

If letting people discuss racial differences and openly express their racial group interests is the social equivalent of a hydrogen bomb, this just confirms my assertion that multiracial society is a precarious powder keg and an inherently unstable situation / bad model. No?

To be fair I don't think I've ever been more wrong about anything then about my hope that near universal instantaneous access to essentially the collected sum of all human knowledge would make being "wrong" almost impossible.

Yeah... missed the mark on that one a bit.

That, or you seriously miscalculated in the realms of human capacity, human nature, what it even means to be wrong vs. right on certain types of issues, etc.

 

[Checkmite]

If they are restricted to clandestine sites, their exposure to each other becomes a closed echo chamber, and reinforces their beliefs.

This remains true whether they are restricted to clandestine sites or not.

Let them see themselves and their ideological comrades ridiculed openly. Let every new potential recruit see how society what large thinks of them.

This does not require giving them a platform. It can be done without that.

You mentioned the movie "The Blues Brothers" as having it right. Did that movie provide a platform for the Illinois Nazis to argue their propaganda or beliefs and then ridicule those beliefs? No, it had them say just enough to establish for the audience that they were Nazis, and then immediately turned them into punching bags. And they stayed that way for the rest of the movie.

Besides, we're not talking about forcing them onto "clandestine sites". We're talking about NAMBLA-fying them. They can have their open sites; they just don't get a seat at our common discussion forums like social media and mainstream news.

 

[Baylor]

I had a specific exchange with the OP where he/she said this thread was also about government regulation.

And I pondered whether it was government regulation that led to the boring, predictable European hive mind. Or whether it has to do with their countries' being more ethnically homogenenous.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You mentioned the movie "The Blues Brothers" as having it right. Did that movie provide a platform for the Illinois Nazis to argue their propaganda or beliefs and then ridicule those beliefs? No, it had them say just enough to establish for the audience that they were Nazis, and then immediately turned them into punching bags. And they stayed that way for the rest of the movie.

Well there was the clear answer to run them down with your car. That could be logically drawn from the movie.

 

[Cavemonster]

Just chiming in to restate that they should be allowed to have their platform.

These are all arguments I've seen commonly made, but I don't see them pan out in real life.

Let them be seen and heard. Makes them easier to identify.

How do you mean identify? Do you mean outing individuals as Nazis to their employers or friends? Do you mean the issue of people knowing what a Nazi looks and sounds like? Or something else?

If they are restricted to clandestine sites, their exposure to each other becomes a closed echo chamber, and reinforces their beliefs. Let them see themselves and their ideological comrades ridiculed openly.

That's not how it works out though. In reality, public ridicule doesn't make people back away from extreme viewpoints, it makes them more entrenched and angry. And while they have access to massive social media sites, they can come away from being ridiculed to lick their wounds with a large group of sympathizers who will assure them that it's the mean ridiculers who are wrong.

The idea that exposure to criticism and mockery defeats bad ideas may make a sort of common sense, but it doesn't seem to really work that way in the real world. Just like fat shaming makes people eat more and yelling about Trump makes people watch more Fox news.

Let every new potential recruit see how society what large thinks of them. The hard core haters won't be moved one way or the other, and will still go on sociopathic sprees; they will with or without facebook.

They weren't born that way though. I can't say that banning them from facebook will necessarily prevent a shooting. But if we trace back the paths of white supremecists who are ready to be violent, I feel pretty confident we'd see the path of them finding and nurturing these ideologies. And significant parts of those paths will be encountering and reinforcing these ideas through publicly accessible spaces online.

But the less cuckoo may be persuaded that the views are fundamentally sick when sunlight shines on them.

This is a nice thought, I don't see a reason tho think it's common though. And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[dudalb]

Robert Heinlein on Free Speech..and he says it better then I ever could:

It's from his novel "If This Goes On" (aka "Revolt In 2100")

“Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy… censorship. Not force, but secrecy… censorship. When any government , or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not see, this you are forbidden to know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.”

Underline "no matter how holy the motives". They always have wonderful reasons for wanting to take freedom away from you.