Arguments Against Free Speech
Before we get into this, I just want to say that I am all for free speech. Just thought it would be interesting to have this discussion.
Free speech is a big issue, you have people calling for censorship of "disinformation," people getting banned for poking holes in the narrative, and a billionaire who bought one of the most influential social media platforms around in the name of free speech. I assume most people here are on the side of free speech regardless of political affiliation but the question I want to ask is what arguments do you have against free speech?
On a related note, Barack Obama recently spoke at Stanford where he argued tech companies should take more action against disinformation and called for more regulation of social media. Essentially, he said that the internet poses threats to democracy and our social fabric because it completely changes how we absorb information. Having no oversight, and allowing a truly free platform brings out the worst in us and allows those with ill intentions to take advantage. I don't buy that for a second but will leave it to all of you to discuss.
Screw it I’ll bite, Post World War 2 Germany, you definitely had folks who supported it to the end but thanks to people and government becoming intolerant of them they went away for the most part in a magnitude that would not have happened had there been free speech. Heck the stuff nazis claimed about jews during their rise in the 20s and early 30s was total disinformation that flourished in the protection of free speech. Regarding today in the US, I don’t see good arguments for it since there isn’t really any particularly attacked group that is truly shut down. That said, with the rise of extremism I can see any group being terrifying enough that down the line I could change my mind.
The point about people becoming intolerant is a good one. I think that's how we "regulate" speech today. As social/political norms change certain things become unacceptable. For example, in the 50's it was probably more acceptable to use certain slurs but if you were to use those slurs today you'd (rightly) be ostracized. Now that isn't to say someone can't say those things they can but there are social consequences that one would have to deal with. Now if a government body or some small group of people decides that for us then that's a pretty big problem even if they're right.
Yep, completely in agreement regarding the discomfort of the idea a few people let alone governments having far too much control over what is the “right and wrong” opinion to say. Now I should caveat my last statement about us becoming more intolerant. I don’t think a given person is becoming worse in our society. Heck the idea of cancel culture has existed forever we just called it polite society until recently. Consider a woman who had sex before marriage in victorian England (gasp!), she would have been ostracized. Or a communist during the 50s in the U.S. would have had no place in most pockets of middle or upperclass society although you could find exceptions the same way you could find people who are in the uppercrust that are countercultural in this day and age who would deal and be friends with you. What makes today so scary is as you pointed out a small group of folks ie social media companies and rabid users who are pushing for cancelling can get you on the outs for having the “wrong” view but as opposed to days past where you could move to another locale or switch industries if you lost your job as a result of the view now the scarlett letter stays with you forever.
Those social consequences don't really exist on an anonymous internet forum.
The Nazis banned information they deemed disinformation. That is the problem with censorship, you have to have full trust in those making the decision to censor. Too many times throughout history we have seen decision makers opt to pushing their own agenda versus standing on a set of principles.
Usually the reason they take that action is specifically to push their own agenda.
I think most people would agree that not all speech is good or beneficial. Like you pointed out disinformation serves zero purpose and just makes us worse off.
The problem is in identifying this type of speech and deciding who's responsible for this job, and I think that's where there is no solution. I wouldn't be confident in **anyone** deciding what can be said and what cannot be said, hence why as a whole it's probably better to not try to censor speech.
I forget who said this but it went something like, "The only solution to bad speech is better speech." I think that's the only solution that can really be applied, as you say not all speech is good or helpful but how and why should we allow any single person or agency to decide that.
Free speech means people who are your enemy can freely spread rumors, that foreign nations can send agents into your midst to agitate the population and disperse crazy/revolutionary ideas, it means that just as easily as the "right" idea can spread so can the "wrong" idea. I put those last two in quotes because you could argue the subjective or objective ideas of both.
Regardless of the risk though I am also a free speech absolutist. The government should never be allowed to restrict people's speech and in that I include using the implicit threat of government being used as a tool to force private entities to censor as well. I also believe that private individuals should be able to sue the fuck out of other private individuals for slander, libel, and other non-truths being asserted as fact in a way that results in measurable damages.
The establishment already does this to their enemies on a regular basis. Free speech means they have to play defense for a change.
Exactly.
>Free speech means people who are your enemy can freely spread rumors, that foreign nations can send agents into your midst to agitate the population and disperse crazy/revolutionary ideas
Would you rather have foreign disinformation, or foreign bombs in your backyard? War will never go away.
What the hell do bombs have to do with anything? This thread is specifically a discussion about free speech and I'm playing the devils advocate with what I think are arguments people/the government could make against it. It's established that I support free speech of the individual already. I never said either position has any effect on preventing war.
Surely then you'll condemn Desantis' action against Disney? I must have missed your post about it.
Not at all, Disney can go fuck themselves and their groomer/pedophile employees. Their speech hasn't been restricted at all, they've just had exclusive privileges taken away. They also aren't people, they're an international megacorporation that functions in its current form because of how closely it ties itself to government. Don't lefties always say "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"? Broadly speaking I would prefer to have seen the privileges they had given to all businesses in Florida to even the playing field, but I'm perfectly satisfied with them just losing them as well.
DeSantis is a Saint!!
The only argument against free speech is if you live in a communist land and you don't want the people to all revolt. Keep the people dumb and you can continue to take advantage of them.
Counter point because I actually enjoy the posts in this topic. Consider free speech capacity to make everyone dumber like the folks who get their news from twitter and end up supporting socialists like AOC and other people who definitely have a dim view of the U.S. like Ilhan Omar
I believe that absolute free speech fosters the truth, so I don’t think fake messages prevail in the long run. The truth always comes out with free speech.
This situation exists because of a lack of free speech, not because of it. AOC is promoted by powerful interests.
Simply put. There aren't any arguments against free speech. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
There are arguments against free speech. To say there are not arguments is wrong. There are no "valid" arguments against free speech.
I'd argue there are valid arguments against free speech. There just aren't arguments for which the benefit outweighs the cost of restricting speech. In fact, we already have laws against free speech, which no one thinks to question.
Yes, for the last week or so I’ve been looking around for arguments that could be used against free speech and literally could not find a good one. The Obama argument I summarized above came up repeatedly, but obviously it’s a terrible take. Jon Stuart Mill’s trident takes down any argument against free speech that I’ve come across so far and I’m sure you know how it goes.
1. You’re wrong and need free speech so people can correct you.
2. You’re partly right and need free speech so you can get to the proper answer.
3. In the unlikely scenario where someone is 100% right about something you still need free speech because debate and contradiction are important to continue to develop your ideas and figure why truly believe what you do.
"It can be politically expedient to ban views you don't like" is always the real reason
Speech that presents a “clear and present danger” or incites “imminent lawless action” are some of the arguments the US has used - the classic example being that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Matters of national security are another - lots of things that you wouldn’t want someone to be able to provide your enemies without repercussion.
Lots of situations that involve alleging, implying, or directly threatening harm such as assault or witness intimidation, not to mention less tangible harms like defamation via libel/slander or harm via intentionally misleading someone like perjury or fraud.
I’m generally very pro-individual freedoms broadly and free speech in particular, but I think most people would agree there’s at least some valid reasons on the above list
Those are not arugments against free speech. Those are some of the trade offs we make as a society to ensure stability. But they aren't arguments against it.
Also, the whole fire in a theater meme isn't even correct.
I mean... they are arguments against free speech, just not arguments convincing enough to be applied in anything other than fringe cases.
It's also worth noting that if you start shouting at someone and threatening them and getting up in their face, and they take a swing, "free speech" isn't going to be a great argument in your defense. Speech can be threatening.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes, Schenk v US, 1919. He literally made that comparison, so yes - it is an accurate argument that’s been made against free speech.
The point isn’t to focus on the fringe cases - it’s to establish that there are clear situations where your right to speech should be limited for the betterment of society. Drawing that line is difficult, but you’re being disingenuous
Free speech is essential to a functioning civic society. Government should not be in the habit of restricting it.
However, that shouldn't be confused with the right to say anything, anywhere - e.g., Twitter is well within its rights to censor whoever it wants, and the market can respond accordingly.
Also, it isn't the right to say anything free from consequence. This is where the "Free Speech" people on the American right wing fall down on their face these days. Yes, you are free to be a bigot, to spread those views wherever you please in the public square, to be a communist, whatever. But you don't get to say that and then complain when people respond to your opinions in their own manner.
> Barack Obama recently spoke at Stanford where he argued tech companies should take more action against disinformation and called for more regulation of social media. Essentially, he said that the internet poses threats to democracy
Oh my, the Cathedral is fighting back and want more control because the mid-terms are coming up and they actually think they might loose... time to release Obama, darling of the media.
The Obama speech was so... strange. You have this liberal hero, who is apparently a rational, intelligent man, one who wants to save democracy and who believes in America. There he is calling for more censorship not less. That the government needs to be more involved in the process. People like Obama are the real danger, not anti-vaxxers, or Alex Jones. He should’ve been booed off stage.
We already have censorship. We just aren't supposed to have government censorship. Your argument is a shitty and uninformed one on its face. And calling for further regulation of social media companies isn't wrong either, though it obviously depends on the specifics of said argument.
And it's hard to imagine how calling for more regulation of monopolistic tech companies is more dangerous than anti-vax movements, which lead to literal disease and death. Or someone like Alex Jones, whose mendacity has led to actual mental and emotional trauma for those enemies of democracy, parents whose children have been gunned down.
It's always amazing to me how ignorant people are. Regulation is not bad, in and of itself. The reason we trust the food we eat to not be literal poison is because a bunch of yahoo liberals decided that maybe food processing companies should be responsible for the safety of the products they sell. The reason your local river doesn't literally spontaneously ignite is because a bunch of yahoo liberals decided that private companies shouldn't have the right to offload waste product onto the public and harm the health and well being of the surrounding communities.
Calling for regulation of a new and rapidly evolving industry is common sense - advances in technology (in this case social media) have come so quickly that they've vastly outstripped the ability of lawmakers or regulators to keep up. Asking to redress that balance is common sense, not some sort of fringe opinion.
Again, everyone has a right to speak their mind without fear of government interference. They do not have a right to escape the consequences of that speech, or to demand that everyone else curtail their own right to free speech in order to promote whatever nonsense is being peddled. Alex Jones can call Sandy Hook a hoax and rile up his listeners to harass parents, but he doesn't get to complain when those parents turn around and sue his pants off for the trauma those people then inflict on them.
crazy how since Elon got twitter people in politics saying we need to "regulate" free speech to save democracy. Free speech is not a threat to democracy its a threat to big government.
+1 million bananas. Exactly. Also, democracy worked in the past when most of the population could barely read. I think it will survive access to the internet. Would argue that disinformation was much much higher at any other point in U.S. history.
Yes exactly. Free speech is a way for the regular person to maintain some power. Big government wanting to regulate speech under the guise of “disinformation” which really is way for their lies to be the narrative.
In theory battling disinformation isn't such a bad idea. In practice, it's all about stifling the speech of those who you don't agree with.
Some other examples of disinformation which is allowed and even encouraged in our society:
1. Socialism is wonderful and all rainbows and sunshine.
2. We're all going to be underwater in 10 years due to global warming.
3. 1619 Project
4. There is no difference in biological men and women and a million other topics related to the trans community debate.
Note that the above are topics that simply do not correspond with basic science, reality, or history. Yet, I don't see the fact checkers going after these issues.
"Who will watch the watchers?"
We should absolutely be uncomfortable giving big tech engineers the power to control the discourse of our society. Lots of these engineers see data privacy and free speech as an obstacle to their work. Unfortunately these platforms have evolved beyond a fun novelty and now have algorithms that can directly sway public opinion and silence opposition to mainstream narratives. Free speech as a principle has to be preserved despite the dangers that go along with it.
'Disinformation' is a very, very, dangerous term. Trying to ban it comes from two camps of people:
1. Those who have influence over media, academia, etc. to control what information is 'accurate' and what is 'misinformation' and want to ban 'misinformation' to spread their power and influence
and
2. Useful idiots that cant see around corners and believe they are helping by supporting this (most liberals are here)
As you become relatively educated and gain experience in the world you learn that almost every issue is very complex, and that absolute truth doesn't exist in a vacuum - areas where there is contention are usually over grey areas. To try and have a black/white approach is either naivety or deception aka not arguing in good faith. Simple example:
- The truth - 'covid is real' - no one is really arguing that. There are very very very few fringe people denying it and sure, feel free to ban that misinformation if you want. But when you look at where the arguments are it's much more complex:
- how effective are masks? How dangerous is it? Are there legitimate concerns about getting a vaccine? Are there various treatment options that aren't scientifically proven yet? How long should lockdowns last? What is an essential worker? etc. etc. etc.
The problem becomes you ban misinformation you then can use scientists, professionals, academics with an agenda (or ties to politicians) to hammer down anyone saying 'hey maybe masks arent effective' , or 'hey exercise and diet can help prevent negative outcomes' and that speech becomes silenced - which has happened.
Now extend it to climate change, racism and policing, LGBT rights, war in Ukraine/middle east, etc. and it quickly becomes a tool to silence dissent instead of promote an open dialogue. That's what this is about.
Who decides what “truth” is? That’s really the crux of all this. Like you point out, issues are complicated and so you have to let everyone voice their opinion. This goes back the trident argument I summarized above, you need free speech because it’s the only for the truth to come out.
There’s a lot of difficult conflicting rights going on.
On one hand intolerance is an issue, an access to any idea generally should be available. Deplatforming is a serious issue with real societal consequences, making this a normal occurrence carry’s problems.
On the other hand, disinformation is a serious threat to society and democracy.
Moral panic is something that has always existed and plagued society. Quickly rational ideas can be rejected in place by delusions, public grows concerned, and a hive like thinking of irrationality takes over.
In the past because cities and people were less linked they were somewhat independent. So through democracy they acted as checks to other cities, since many of these cities had different perspectives. Now with the age of instant information entire countries and continents can be hive like in thinking and quickly shifted from one moral panic to another. The check on this that we have developed is “experts” which we rely on to stabilize moral panics. The problem of course with this is power concentration, lack of free agency, deplatforming certain ideas to swing public towards a certain goal etc.
So we have to figure out how to enable access to information, education, and free agency, without inciting chaos, moral panic, and stop public delusions (ideas that are dangerous and can enable rejecting rational ideas, think flat earth, lizard people, etc). It’s difficult to discern these things and it’s a incredibly complex issue.
Flat earth and lizard people are really fringe and no one takes them seriously. I think a better example would probably be the Ukraine/Russia situation. You have a ton of propaganda, lies, and war crimes on both sides and no one knows what’s true. The mainstream media have taken a side (obviously) and anyone who isn’t on that side is being silenced or simply ignored. It’s very dangerous. In my mind, the only solution is to let people speak, I do have faith that good and rational ideas win out over the bad.
The wonderful thing about faith is that by definition it does not require evidence to hold fast.
I believe that good ideas eventually win out over the bad, but over a short or medium term time frame, the bad ideas sure can cause a lot of harm.
censoring against "disinformation" screams orwellian newspeak so loud, idk how ppl just nod their heads in agreement
because they think they are smarter, get to laugh at the .0001% of people that think the earth is flat, and that they are doing a net good for society without realizing how quickly it will flip on them
reeeeee microaggression reeeeee thoughtcrimes!
While I tend to side with the idea that almost no speech should be censored (I agree with the screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre issue)… I would actually suggest a different proposal that isn’t perfect, but would potentially reduce a lot of the problems plaguing the internet:
The right to free speech should be tied with one’s identity. Meaning, force everyone who registers with twitter to register with their actual name and provide proof of identity, like opening a bank account or registering to vote (oops, scratch that second one). I know this would create new problems, but I think the ability to create fake profiles or post anonymously has enabled trolls to take over pretty much every online platform that exists.
If people were required to put their name behind their comments online, I think they would be a lot more thoughtful about what they posted.
I think it would immediately cut down on the number of ‘fake Chinese or Russian accounts spreading disinformation’ about whatever subject — Trump, Biden, elections, whatever. People would be far less likely to make threats online. Heck, I think even the online bullying would go down if people couldn’t do it anonymously. It would also provide more context for who was making a statement — the reader would be able to better ascertain the quality of the information source rather than rely on anonymous people saying: “I’m a scientist and masks work/don’t work!!”
I do understand the value in being able to make statements anonymously (such as people on WSO asking career questions), but I do believe the internet would be a better place if we all had to stand behind our comments.
This is a good take. Even when WSO got rid of anon posting in the off-topic forum (even though we're still anon, Dick Steele is not my real name lol) I noticed a lot of the edgy, trollish comments aren't as common on threads. It could be a good thing if everyone on Twitter and other social media sites was verified, it could foster more honest discussion. One thing I'll add and this is somewhat related, a person shouldn't be able to personalize their feed to the extent some people do. News stories and takes from all sides should be shown not just the ones from your "team." If Twitter is the nation's public square and social media at large is how many people get their news then I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to be shown things from many different angles.
I don't think that'd solve anything disinformation-related. Hate Speech, sure. BigTiddyFan_69 probably isn't going to post the N-word if it's linked to his name, and there will be less trolls. I could see kids getting Doxxed more. It's already scarily easy to do, but still.
For Disinformation, I think it could make it worse. If people think that there are no Chinese/ Russian propagandist accounts, they'll be more inclined to believe what they see online (to be fair, my parents already do). Even if each account requires an individual to post their ID to register it, there will still be fraudulent accounts made with stolen IDs, there will still be accounts that get hacked, and crackpots who believe whatever space laser shit some troll makes.
I'm fairly sure China does something similar to what you suggested with Weibo. I'd assume there are still racists, trolls, and crackpots on there too.
Great to hear we're mostly in agreement that the government shouldn't regulate free speech. I'm left of center and agree 100%.
And yet, I haven't seen one post on WSO about Desantis using state powers to punish Disney for mildly speaking out again a policy of his administration. This seems like a massive government overreach, actual 1A violation (unlike anything Twitter did as a private company) and advancement of the "authoritarian state" that I hear so often Republicans accuse Democrats of using. (a la the now debunked IRS targeting scandal).
Do you all support Desantis' decision? And if so, how do you justify it in light of all of the comments above? Just happy that your side did it? Own the libs at all costs? (Let's ignore that this action may not be enforceable and was going to give Disney a tax break)
Desantis "punishing" a company for speaking out against the state government: Bad
Desantis enacting that punishment by making that company subject to the same laws and regulations that every other company in Florida is subject to: Good
Desantis bloating the state government since it now has to do all the things Disney did on its own land before: Bad
Which would be perfectly fine if this were the justification - wanting to level the playing field. Yet DeSantis was perfectly fine with it until Disney spoke out, which is why people are unhappy/uneasy about it.
This is why people don't take free speech absolutists seriously - you guys selectively want free speech but don't speak out when actual government censorship occurs.
Except that he hasn't revoked the same privilege for other special districts across the state, including the Republican-heavy Villages retirement district, or the Daytona Beach Nascar site. So this scorecard is Bad, Bad, Bad.
Far too many people conflate "free speech" with "you should be able to say whatever you want, wherever you want, with no consequences".
First and foremost, privately held companies should always be allowed to decide what can be put on their platforms, and what cannot. I am very interested in seeing what happens with Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter.
Now, what about when governments are the ones deciding what is allowed vs not? Then it becomes far more tricky. Clearly, society as a whole has decided that some things you cannot say, because they indicate negative intent (e.g. calling in a bomb threat). But what about calling someone on the street "insert racial slur here"? What if every single morning your neighbor sat on his porch watching your 5 year old daughter waiting for the school bus and loudly proclaimed how sexy she was?
There are lines beyond which some forms of speech become "unacceptable". In my view, the smaller and more localized the form of "government" is, the more acceptable it is for that government to take actions against that speech, or to more strictly define those lines. Any private citizen is free to call anyone else out on anything, a HOA should be able to take some sort of action against someone very visible being a bad neighbor, a state government should only get involved in mediating a dispute where someone is claiming slander or libel, and the federal government should basically never be involved in these things short of someone calling for the assassination of a federal official or something that requires federal involvement due to crossing state lines.
Whenever I hear someone talk about Free Speech I just hear pointless grandstanding and zone out. Especially when it's coming from the richest man in the world or someone in congress. There are serious cases of Free Speech being threatened (Rebekah Jones being swatted, Steve Donziger's arrest, various shit with the war in Iraq/ Afghanistan), and Trump being banned on Twitter isn't one of them.
Due to the proliferation of Social Media (and the decline of traditional media), it now acts as the primary way people get news. I think having this news source be controlled by a few institutions, whether government or private, is dangerous. That said, I think that the News/ Social Media companies have a social responsibility to stop the spread of misinformation (or in Meta's case not facilitate the spread of it), and a Financial responsibility (Users/ advertisers won't want to be associated with a website full of people saying the N word) to clamp down on hate speech.
The Steve Donziger case is a massive massive stain on the American justice system. Goes to show money and influence can get you out of anything, anywhere.
What is misinformation? Which of the following is wrong? More than one? None? All?
Covid-19 leaked from a Chinese lab
Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation
Vaccinated people can still catch and spread Covid-19
Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election
The 2020 election was stolen
The 2020 election was rigged by state government ignoring the law and media picking sides
The whole free speech debate is misleading in that 1) these are private companies, and 2) there are algos the push up content, which is manipulated speech. Apart from the tech aspect, there is a difference with saying what you want vs. doing so in a job or other capacity. Likewise, just as there is no restriction to the speech itself, there should be no rules limiting people/companies from reacting adversely to said speech. After all nothing is in fact free - say what you will but don't complain about potential consequences from private people/enterprises.
Omnis eum saepe laudantium tempora maiores eius. Molestiae illo voluptas aliquam laborum. Expedita eum deleniti qui explicabo quae quis.
Aut voluptas ad error impedit ipsam. Illum assumenda tempora id officiis vitae deleniti. Deleniti quidem dolores iusto nam fugiat dolores ullam. Labore non dolorem eum sapiente commodi eius incidunt. Exercitationem est doloribus recusandae nobis laborum quia.
Sunt quod a officia dolore odio sequi. Hic quia occaecati ut quis illum. Cumque consectetur sed omnis modi culpa reiciendis sequi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Est amet aperiam dicta est illo. Rerum est illum illum sunt eligendi nesciunt. Repellat doloremque in et consequatur unde et reiciendis.
Eos voluptatem magnam et illum et dignissimos. Omnis veniam neque ratione. Optio libero ea maiores adipisci enim autem. Sit esse dolores non atque numquam ut in.
Dolorem eius non molestias architecto unde. Et necessitatibus voluptatem molestiae sunt molestias. Optio consequatur perferendis molestiae voluptate repellendus doloremque laboriosam nisi. Porro sequi qui aliquid error.
Sequi voluptas quae nam ut voluptatem tempore vitae. Veritatis facere doloremque porro facere magni tempore eius ut. Consequatur accusamus iste impedit praesentium. Quia qui nesciunt reiciendis dolor possimus. Earum in odio voluptates autem debitis accusantium aut aperiam. Consectetur aut voluptate sit. Impedit reiciendis eligendi ut ea laborum.
Aut aut eos dolorem neque sapiente dolor quasi. Autem dignissimos iure molestiae tenetur vitae soluta est. Aut cum nihil nostrum minima et. Voluptatem ullam nostrum deserunt unde necessitatibus molestias. Id veritatis accusantium vel unde eligendi iusto.
Suscipit quasi magni quibusdam sint unde velit. Nihil non ipsam eos sint. Repudiandae aspernatur aspernatur ad quidem commodi dolores. Enim consequuntur deleniti aut voluptatem aut. Aut quasi aut et voluptas voluptas ratione voluptatem magnam. Quo ipsa nesciunt modi recusandae.
Ipsum id perspiciatis eligendi vel iure distinctio tenetur ipsa. Sed expedita qui quidem id qui dolorum. Nostrum repudiandae aut et voluptatem ex inventore. Eveniet voluptatibus quia nihil. Velit magni accusantium et molestias quo. Tempora dolores voluptatibus earum et.
Facere molestiae ut provident. Voluptatem eum repellat deleniti eos.
Pariatur culpa nostrum ab dolores velit vero. Velit quis consequatur quas. Ad qui quas aut at similique. Sint enim ducimus fugiat ut impedit aspernatur. Ut voluptas accusantium hic expedita natus aspernatur.