"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[Giz]

I’ll throw in this quote from a former Supreme Court justice:

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”

 

[DragonLady]

Metaphors aside, social media and online discussion are powerful recruiting tools for violent extremists. And normalizing their core ideas in slightly less extreme spaces are part of that process.

The recent New Zealand shooter got a lot of his talking points on 8chan. (EDIT: I believe. It may have been another chan or chan related site)

If by turning on the lights, you mean to make the distinction between allowing public discussion and disallowing it, I think a strong argument can be made that turning on the lights CAN make the monsters bigger.

Seems the fear is that freedom of SPEECH will lead down a slippery slope to freedom to ACT.

In fact, they're two different things, unless the speech itself is harmful, such as causing mass panic or inciting a riot.

Personally, I'd prefer to see ALL speech be "free speech" rather than see more limits on what can or can't be said in just about any circumstances.

Better allowing people to yell "fire" in the theatre than take away the power to say "hell no" when they believe they're in danger of losing more rights.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes and?

You went with a point strictly about government regulation in your own thread that is purposely distanced from the subject of government regulation.

 

[Cavemonster]

Seems the fear is that freedom of SPEECH will lead down a slippery slope to freedom to ACT.

That's not an abstract fear, it's an observation we can make. It isn't a slippery slope in the fallacious sense because the path between speech and action is clear and observable rather than theoretical.

In fact, they're two different things, unless the speech itself is harmful, such as causing mass panic or inciting a riot.

Personally, I'd prefer to see ALL speech be "free speech" rather than see more limits on what can or can't be said in just about any circumstances.

Better allowing people to yell "fire" in the theatre than take away the power to say "hell no" when they believe they're in danger of losing more rights.

I'm curious about your foundations with this. Are you a deontologist? A consequentialist?

Imagine you could look through a crystal ball. In one future America, white supremacy has spread. They've taken over the government, people of color are being deported and murdered (Note, I'm not arguing this is a real probable future, I'm just trying to get a feel of where you value outcome vs. principle).

In another future America, things continue much as they are today. The only difference that creates these alternate futures is whether facebook bans white supremacist pages. Would you be in favor of that ban, or would you think the principle of freedom was more important than the outcome?

 

[Cavemonster]

You went with a point strictly about government regulation in your own thread that is purposely distanced from the subject of government regulation.

I responded to a poster with a particular point about government regulation.

And I'm not sure what you mean by this thread being purposefully distanced. I'm open to discussing all levels and types of limits on speech from governments to company policies to social trends. I'm not necessarily advocating for governmental censorship but by all means let's discuss what that would look like.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

We KNOW that marketplaces don't work without a regulatory framework and ways to enforce them.
And we know they still go off the rails from time to time. And we know that some things have to stay off the market for the sake of society as a whole.
So I see zero problem with making it really hard for some opinions to enter the marketplace, if they are dangerous for the day-to-day operation of the place.

 

[Stout]

Other than nazis, and I'm sure we're all sick of nazis, what suggestions do you have for ideas that need to be removed ?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The "Marketplace of Ideas" doesn't mean every idea has to be debated forever until every party is satisfied.

"Is Nazism good or bad?" is not a debate anymore. We had a war about it. The whole world was involved. It was kind of a big deal. The jury is in on "Nazis."

 

[Cavemonster]

I’ll throw in this quote from a former Supreme Court justice:

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”

Stirring words, but I think the actual argument, when stripped of its poetry is not entirely convincing to me. And I think "freedom" and "liberty" writ large are fetishized and often misleading concepts. That's how you get libertarians.

In reality, we balance our "freedoms to" with our "freedoms from" and we do it in all aspects of our lives. You could say similar stirring things about the freedom of movement and commerce. But we regulate the heck out of both and our edifice hasn't come crashing down. (See my earlier comment on in this thread)

I think poetic words need to lead to practical arguments that incorporate nuance. If you're going to talk about the lofty ideals of those who won our independence. They wrote that all men are created equal with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They wrote that while many of them owned other people. So I take high praise for the value of liberty with a major grain of salt until we get to the brass tacks of what that liberty is meant to entail.

 

[Cavemonster]

Other than nazis, and I'm sure we're all sick of nazis, what suggestions do you have for ideas that need to be removed ?

Lets start with the Nazis and see how that works out. Don't want to plunge down the slippery slope too quickly!

However, given that a major measles outbreak has just happened near me, with hundreds infected, I'm open to talking about antivaxxers.

(Although, I suspect that being driven underground will have more of a multiplying effect on antivaxxers than it would on Nazis. Their recruiting patterns are different)

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

What about the teaching of Evolution? Are we going to allow that crackpot idea?

 

[Cavemonster]

What about the teaching of Evolution? Are we going to allow that crackpot idea?

Some schools didn't and we survived it.

Which shows that even the abuse of limits on speech is not so dire as some would suggest.

Again, as I said above, risks exist. We balance risk in every regulation or lack of regulation we decide.

"There is a risk!" or "There are differences of opinion!" is not a barrier to regulations of speech anymore than it's a barrier to all other kinds of regulation.

I posted about it in more detail earlier in the thread.

 

[Giz]

Stirring words, but I think the actual argument, when stripped of its poetry is not entirely convincing to me. And I think "freedom" and "liberty" writ large are fetishized and often misleading concepts. That's how you get libertarians.

In reality, we balance our "freedoms to" with our "freedoms from" and we do it in all aspects of our lives. You could say similar stirring things about the freedom of movement and commerce. But we regulate the heck out of both and our edifice hasn't come crashing down. (See my earlier comment on in this thread)

I think poetic words need to lead to practical arguments that incorporate nuance. If you're going to talk about the lofty ideals of those who won our independence. They wrote that all men are created equal with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They wrote that while many of them owned other people. So I take high praise for the value of liberty with a major grain of salt until we get to the brass tacks of what that liberty is meant to entail.

I think that where we are going awry is the bit where as the quote had it “courage is the secret of liberty”. There is a bit of a crisis of confidence in our civilization, leaving many afraid that our values can not withstand a rough and tumble debate.

Also... it’s sad that a skeptic forum has so many members who are eager to abandon the principle of free inquiry and debate. Couldn’t they find an inquisition and censorship forum to join?

 

[DragonLady]

Imagine you could look through a crystal ball. In one future America, white supremacy has spread. They've taken over the government, people of color are being deported and murdered (Note, I'm not arguing this is a real probable future, I'm just trying to get a feel of where you value outcome vs. principle).

If in the future people are being deported, it's probably because they're not citizens. Maybe it will be necessary to reconsider who is allowed to enter in the first place.

If people are being murdered, it's because the laws against murdering them aren't adequate or aren't being enforced adequately.

Neither issue is going to be solved by preventing people from discussing it over coffee.

If we believe we can truthfully say "the wrong" speech causes "the wrong" acts, then it follows "the wrong" thought leads to "the wrong" speech.* Are we going to make it a crime to THINK about murder next**?

Also, if we do make discussion of anything illegal how in hell do we pass our values on to future generations?

While I'm on the subject, how would this impact historical study? Should we ban books so no one can start to think about a world without ______? Should we ban references in entertainment, too?

If we're going to ban discussions of white nationalism, should we also ban discussions of other cultures? Should we close down blacks-only schools? Turn the native Americans out of their reservations and raze Chinatown?


*If so..."the right" speech should lead to "the right" acts; thus we've achieved balance and no changes are needed.

**AFAIK we're currently lacking the technology, but I'm sure with the right applications of money, political pressure and power we can make it a priority for R&D companies to find a way. Who needs a cure for cancer when we can start raking in tax dollars to incarcerate those who dare believe the WASP culture is worth keeping?

 

[Cavemonster]

Also... it’s sad that a skeptic forum has so many members who are eager to abandon the principle of free inquiry and debate. Couldn’t they find an inquisition and censorship forum to join?

Go back to the post in the Jussie thread that I originally responded to.

There was no inquiry and no room for debate. There is zero possibility of changed minds or expanded ideas in that particular case.

Again, free inquiry and debate is a beautiful poetic idea, but it doesn't apply to any string of characters an individual might fling into the cosmos.

 

[Arcade22]

Ok so here's my question again: how do you ensure that limits on unwanted speech don't come back to bite you in the ass?

Like, now you get to decide which speech is allowed, but what happens when your neighbor gets the stick?

Most of us live in democracies where no single person gets to decide what the limits of free speech should be. Preventing people from openly arguing against the basic freedoms that i hold dare, and the well-being and prosperity that follows from them, is nothing less than self-preservation.

Or should i just passively let fascists, islamists, reactionaries and far-left extremists undermine the source of my own well-being, even though they don't even bother to hide the fact that would oppress and even outright kill me? Even when their public support becomes large enough that they might be able to implement their will? Just blissfully walk up to the chopping block with a smile on my face, content with the fact that i died because of freedom?

Liberal democracy shouldn't be passive or accommodative towards those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle it, even if they choose to use democratic means to do so.

 

[Cavemonster]

If in the future people are being deported, it's probably because they're not citizens. Maybe it will be necessary to reconsider who is allowed to enter in the first place.

If people are being murdered, it's because the laws against murdering them aren't adequate or aren't being enforced adequately.

Neither issue is going to be solved by preventing people from discussing it over coffee.

If we believe we can truthfully say "the wrong" speech causes "the wrong" acts, then it follows "the wrong" thought leads to "the wrong" speech.* Are we going to make it a crime to THINK about murder next**?

I think I made the wrong decision in trying a thought experiment. They're how I often break things down for myself but sometimes they decrease clarity when used with others and this looks like one of those cases.

I swear it wasn't meant a "gotcha" I'm really trying to find out what the roots of your position are.

Let me try asking more directly.

To what extent is your concern about the value of the principle and to what extent is it concern about what you see as the plausible consequences of relaxing the principle?

Also, if we do make discussion of anything illegal how in hell do we pass our values on to future generations?

I think you're making a use/mention error here. Germany has strict laws about how people talk about Nazis but that doesn't mean you can't mention Nazis. You can make a law, or a rule for a social media platform, or a social principle which addresses advocacy for a position without prohibiting any discussion of values around those issues.

While I'm on the subject, how would this impact historical study? Should we ban books so no one can start to think about a world without ______? Should we ban references in entertainment, too?

Again, that use/mention distinction. People in Germany can study the history of the Holocaust.

If we're going to ban discussions of white nationalism, should we also ban discussions of other cultures? Should we close down blacks-only schools? Turn the native Americans out of their reservations and raze Chinatown?

This seems to be a slippery slope argument. If we let gays marry, what then, cousins, pets? If there is a strong argument in favor of something and strong arguments against other things, why would the first thing lead to the others?

*If so..."the right" speech should lead to "the right" acts; thus we've achieved balance and no changes are needed.

**AFAIK we're currently lacking the technology, but I'm sure with the right applications of money, political pressure and power we can make it a priority for R&D companies to find a way. Who needs a cure for cancer when we can start raking in tax dollars to incarcerate those who dare believe the WASP culture is worth keeping?

That's just a much bigger slippery slope argument. There is nothing about being open to regulating speech that necessitates that and you could make a similar argument for any regulation. Jaywalking laws, what to keep people from walking out into traffic? Anywhere people walk could potentially be unsafe. We need to gut all programs to strap people into padded chairs 24/7!!

 

[DragonLady]

Liberal democracy shouldn't be passive or accommodative towards those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle it, even if they choose to use democratic means to do so.

Agreed. But, conservative republicans shouldn't be passive or accommodative toward those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle their world, either.

This planet is home to all of us. We should ALL have an equal right to discuss what we want, state our positions, defend the freedoms we hold dear, and enjoy well-being and prosperity.

Liberals and democrats do not hold a monopoly, nor should they ever.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Free speech" doesn't have to be a suicide pact where we're so Bobishly ideologically pure to it we have to let it self destruct to prove we're loyal to it.

 

[Belz...]

I’ll throw in this quote from a former Supreme Court justice:

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”

Unless you were a woman, indian or black, that is.