Freedom of Speech

post by Zero Contradictions · 2024-08-20T16:34:57.316Z · LW · GW · 2 comments

This is a link post for https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2017/09/freedom-of-speech.html

Contents

2 comments

The PDF version can be read here.

The audio version can be listened to here:

What is freedom of speech?

People often confuse the principle of free speech with a specific law intended to protect free speech, such as the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of speech is not a specific law or set of laws. Freedom of speech is the principle that coercion should not be used to suppress ideas.

What is freedom of speech for?

The primary function of free speech is to enable social rationality. Social rationality means thinking together. Discussion and debate are ways of thinking together. They are ways of solving problems and making decisions together. Freedom of speech creates a space in which people can freely exchange ideas, and thus think together.

Freedom of speech is necessary for social rationality, because otherwise alternatives cannot be presented for consideration. Without freedom of speech, only popular or official opinions can be safely expressed. Under those conditions, the social belief system is fixed. Errors cannot be corrected, and new ideas cannot be explored. Thought requires the freedom to consider alternatives. It requires an open mind. A society that does not permit free speech has a closed mind. It cannot think. Freedom of speech protects society from becoming trapped in a vicious cycle of conformity.

There is a more general principle behind freedom of speech, which could be called “the principle of reason”, or simply “rationality”. It is the principle that ideas should be chosen based on their merits, not imposed by coercion or deception. Freedom of speech protects ideas from being suppressed by coercion. That is the primary function of free speech. It creates a space in which ideas can be exchanged freely and selected based on their merits, rather than imposed by authority, whether it is the authority of the state or the authority of the mob.

Freedom of speech has a secondary function. It protects individuals from the arbitrary exercise of social power. The power to police speech is very easy to abuse, because speech is a complex thing. It depends on context and interpretation. It has insincere forms, such as jokes, satire and trolling. Freedom of speech protects individuals from being punished for a joke or an off-hand remark. It also protects minorities from a tyranny of the majority. It protects people with minority views from persecution by the state or the mob.

Freedom of speech requires more than just freedom from state censorship. It requires a culture that respects individual freedom of belief, a culture that values rationality above conformity.

Freedom of speech can be limited by the state, corporations, the mob or individuals acting alone. Any use of coercion to suppress ideas is an attack on freedom of speech.

(see the rest of the post in the link)

2 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by ProgramCrafter (programcrafter) · 2024-08-20T18:06:10.643Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The post makes a separate claim with each sentence and, instead of going on to reasons, continues with yet another claim. I think this negatively affects its quality: for instance

It [freedom of speech] protects people with minority views from persecution by the state or the mob. <...> Freedom of speech can be limited by the state, corporations, the mob or individuals acting alone. Any use of coercion to suppress ideas is an attack on freedom of speech.

This seems significantly misleading. Ideas should be selected based on their merits, and that requires that some ideas do not survive. Thus, suppression of ideas could be a thing positive to social rationality.

Replies from: Zero Contradictions
↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-08-21T00:48:47.725Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Actually, this was supposed to be a linkpost. I thought had I had submitted the post this way, but I guess not. In any case, the PDF version and the video version were already included I first submitted this post, and I edited this to be a linkpost to link to the original essay.

The post makes a separate claim with each sentence and, instead of going on to reasons, continues with yet another claim.

I don't think you read the entire essay then. Only the essay's introduction can be seen directly on this post. You'd have to view the PDF, the video, or the blog post to see the rest of the post and the justifications for the claims made in the introduction. That's pretty normal in most writing.

Freedom of speech can be limited by the state, corporations, the mob or individuals acting alone. Any use of coercion to suppress ideas is an attack on freedom of speech.

In the PDF version, you can most clearly see that there is a section of the essay dedicated to explaining how each of these can happen.

It [freedom of speech] protects people with minority views from persecution by the state or the mob.

As the author defined "freedom of speech" in the first paragraph of the essay, "Freedom of speech is the principle that coercion should not be used to suppress ideas." So of course having freedom of speech would protect people with minority views from persecution due to their ideas.

This seems significantly misleading.

How is it misleading? There are plenty of examples throughout history where not having freedom of speech lead to persecution.

Ideas should be selected based on their merits

You're missing the point of the essay. The author agrees that ideas should be selected based on their merits. If a society truly has social rationality, then it's already implied that the ideas that get selected and promoted by the society will be rational ideas. The point of free speech is to ensure that society never misses out on hearing a good idea.

And how are you defining "merit"? And from what perspective? When the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest, they censored him on the basis that his ideas contradicted their sacred texts. From the Church's perspective, his ideas did not have any merits.

Thus, suppression of ideas could be a positive thing to social rationality.

I don't think so. Can you give some examples of what you're talking about?

Ideas should be selected based on their merits, and that requires that some ideas do not survive.

If a society has social rationality, then it's going to reject irrational ideas by itself. The irrational ideas won't survive. That means that it isn't necessary to suppress "bad" ideas. If any ideas were being suppressed at all in a rational society, then there's a risk that the society will limit its exposure to good ideas.

Why do you think that it's better to forcefully suppress ideas that a fully rational society would reject anyway? How would you suppress the ideas that you think should be suppressed? How can you be sure that you would be suppressing the right ideas? You're doing exactly what you're accusing the author of doing in the essay.