Since Elon Musk's chaotic takeover of Twitter, influential voices have called for a form of "free-speech absolutism," a term coined by Musk himself. Influential podcaster Lex Fridman, for instance, recently tweeted: "Trump is back. Freedom of speech in action." The idea here is that we must have the right to say just about anything we want, and that no crime can be committed by speech alone. Patrick Brauckmann went as far as to state to me, publicly, that "Freedom of speech does include & mean the freedom to call for the end of freedom" (my emphasis). In other words, our beloved freedom of speech is so invaluable that one must have the right to use it so to end, well, our invaluable freedom of speech.
(The statement, in the tweet above, that I claimed to be the arbiter of law and truth is a flat-out lie, ostensibly protected by free speech.)
To see why, simply consider the following few things that, under free-speech absolutism, would be protected by law: the freedom to lie, mislead, subvert, threaten, intimidate, to call for the bullying of vulnerable individuals or groups, to call for genocide, for crimes, libel, sedition, and so on. Should these be protected by freedom of speech?
In a democracy, every freedom comes hand-in-hand with responsibility. The freedom to speak—a motor action like walking or pulling a trigger—is no different. It is as insane to make speech legally untouchable as it would be to do so for pulling a trigger; for the consequences can be entirely equivalent. As a matter of fact, historically speaking, speech is considerably more dangerous than pulling a trigger, as it can potentially affect many more lives.
Clearly, crimes and morally indefensible actions can be carried out by speech alone; they should never fall under the umbrella of protection provided by freedom of speech. This is why most civilised countries have laws against, e.g., false advertising, online bullying, intimidation, libel, sedition, and so on. It is absolutely nonsensical and supremely dangerous to over-interpret freedom of speech in such a manner that demagogic propaganda, public misinformation, intimidation and sedition become rights.
Even when freedom of speech does apply, one's freedom to speak their mind does not translate into another's obligation to amplify or provide a platform for it. Even if toxic individuals using a social media platform have the right to say some of the things they say, such right does not translate into the social media platform's obligation to host their speech. And here, ethics and moral values come into play.
But many of the free-speech absolutists out there interpret the right to speak so broadly that it translates into the obligation by others to amplify morally and legally unacceptable nonsense. They do exactly that when they consider e.g. Twitter's original decision to exclude some toxic individuals from its platform a form of censorship. This is itself dangerous misinformation, for no private individual or organisation is required by law to host, amplify or provide a platform for everything everyone wants to say. Instead, individuals and organisations have the freedom to follow their own priorities and moral compass when deciding who they want to collaborate with or give a voice to. And that is protected by the law.
In his book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper discusses the 'paradox of tolerance': if a society is tolerant without limits, thereby not curtailing the actions of the intolerant in its midst, its ability to be tolerant is eventually hijacked, subverted, and ultimately destroyed by the intolerant. In other words, tolerant societies must not tolerate the intolerant, or tolerance will die. The same can be said of freedom in general, and freedom of speech in particular: an absolutist form of free speech will lead to the end of freedom.
And this is why free-speech absolutism is internally contradictory. Those calling for it are effectively calling for the end of free speech itself. History has an overwhelming precedent for it: on the 5th of March of 1933, the nazi party took part in free, democratic, multi-party federal elections in Germany. Through a combination of what was then highly-innovative propaganda methods, intimidation campaigns carried out through publicly-spoken threats, and endless misleading and false public statements—that is, the criminal subversion of free speech—the nazi party came to power. The next multi-party federal elections in Germany took place only in 1990. In the interim, tens of millions of people were murdered worldwide as a direct result of the 1933 election, Stalinism unfolded, half of Europe lost its freedom for decades, and the cold war was fought at great expense for all parties involved. That is what you get with absolutist freedom of speech.
The very call for absolutist free speech is a subversion of freedom. If anything can be publicly said without legal consequences or ethical oversight—whether it is true or false, productive or criminal—then nothing that is ever said can ever count; nothing can ever be taken seriously or relied upon. Public discourse and debate become meaningless, eventually die, and, with them, democracy. As a matter of fact, this is precisely what modern Russian propaganda tries to achieve, as explained by political scientist Dr. Vlad Vexler in this extremely important video. And just like in Russia, doing this may be a deliberate attempt by some interests in the West (and abroad) to lay the groundwork for an authoritarian take-over of Western societies, under the guise of—of all things—defending freedom. The perniciousness and vileness of such an attempt is sickening.
We must not be naive, lest we lose our way of life. We must not allow free speech to be subverted. An often unspoken truth at the present historical juncture is that democracy has become a threat to many established interests within the West itself, for cultural and demographic trends mean that groups who have always had their hands in the levers of power may no longer do so in the near future. What better way to avoid this than to undermine democracy from within, by subverting the democratic process itself, while shouting to the four winds the limitless applicability of free speech? So the next time you hear a call for absolutist free speech, ask yourself whether it really is a defence of freedom, or perhaps precisely the opposite; a wolf dressed in sheep's clothes.
It's hard to know which free-speech absolutists are simply naive and which have a desire (conscious or unconscious) to promote an authoritarian rather than democratic society. Either way, it's frightening that influential and relatively mainstream folks like Lex are so blithely wrong about such an important issue. It's one thing from the far-right, another when it's someone who seemingly straddles the center...
ReplyDeleteI think Jonathan Haidt's social psychological analysis is more useful here:
Delete"The Liberty/oppression foundation (...) makes people notice and resent any sign of attempted domination. It triggers an urge to band together to resist or overthrow bullies and tyrants. This foundation supports the egalitarianism and antiauthoritarianism of the left, as well as the don’t-tread-on-me and give-me-liberty antigovernment anger of libertarians and some conservatives." (The Righteous Mind, p. 203)
Hello Bernardo. I think that very few proponents of free speech argue that speech should be legally untouchable. What I would like to see is only maximal freedom to express opinions within the confines of regional law, with a few sensible restrictions against things like racial slurs, as those add nothing to any conversation.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to go about things is to have regional moderation. So, if I in the United States say something that is illegal in France, a French moderator could block my post - but only for French users! My comment would remain visible to users who are located in other countries where my comment is legal.
This is similar to what YouTube does with its videos, where it locks copyrighted content only for regions where copyright law applies.
I think region moderation is the only way to go, as the alternative is a kind of "lowest common denominator" moderation where speech restrictions are set by the least free countries.
What I do not want to see is a return to the old, where people could not even express opinions like "men cannot get pregnant" without having their accounts suspended by a politically charged moderator.
I agree with you in principle Bernardo, but I wonder how this could be practically implemented? Every side of the aisle is accusing the other of being anti-freedom. I can see how the notion of free speech absolutism can absolutely lead to dangerous ends, but I'm not sure how to practically draw the line on which kind of speech is allowed without delving into authoritarianism.
ReplyDeleteGood point Pandaproducts. Who gets to be the arbiter of truth? What if the institutions people count on to protect them from disinformation are the ones disseminating most of the disinformation? What if calling for censorship of those allegedly threatening democracy is effectively strengthening the hand of authoritarian powers whose ever-tightening grip on the exchange of ideas is the real threat to freedom, and, who knows, perhaps even to the very future of humanity as we know it?
DeleteWhile many things are unclear and up to debate (What's the right interpretation of quantum mechanics? What is dark matter? Is capitalism sustainable? How fast will global warming unfold? etc.), there are also a gGREAT MANY IMPORTANT things that are established fact. To say that everything is up for grabs is dangerous and nonsensical relativism. If we abandon the very notion of verifiable truth, we are lost. This is precisely what Russian propaganda does to de-politicize Russians and turn them from citizens into mere (compliant) inhabitants. There is a segment of the right in the West that is attempting to do the same, and if it succeeds, this will be our downfall. Watch the video embedded in this article.
DeleteTHERE IS SUCH THING AS ESTABLISHED FACT. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS KNOWN TRUTH.
Bernardo, I think it would help to clarify the position you are taking here if you could provide a short list of some of these “GREAT MANY IMPORTANT things that are established fact”, and what actions you believe are warranted to prevent these from being challenged. I assume that metaphysical materialism, for you, would not make that list.
DeleteBob, here's one of countless equally valid lists: most scientific theories work in practice, proven by experiment (if you don't believe it, stop using anything in your life that has been enabled by science, and see how far you go); most technologies work as proven by the fact that you rely on them every day (if you don't believe it, stop using technology: no more car, cell phone, computer, etc. including this website); vaccines by and large work and have dramatically reduced childhood mortality; medicines by and large work, as proven by our longer life span (if you don't believe it, stop taking medicines); human beings need proper food and water to survive (if you doubt it, try to live without); and so and so forth. That you ask me to produce such a list is embarrassing. I presume you like my work, otherwise you wouldn't be here; yet my work is largely based on scientific fact demonstrated by experiment. If you think nothing is really true and everything is made up as we go along, then you should reject my work. I disavow any link with the fashionable BULLSHIT that everything is relative and there are no reliable facts. I want no association with that social pathology of our times. It's dangerous and insane.
DeleteThanks for taking the trouble to respond Bernardo, but I still don’t understand why anyone disputing these or any other “established facts” would be considered a threat to democracy, or would need to be censored.
DeleteTo clarify the intent of my comment, I was not really trying to promote the idea that nothing is true, but rather to call attention to the possibility that much of what establishment propaganda presents as “established fact” has in fact been “established” by institutional corruption.
Bob, misinformation is self-evidently dangerous and manipulative in nature. It leads to death and tragedy. That's what nazi propaganda did, and what Russian propaganda is doing today. And it happens in the West too. Case in point: a new anti-vax "documentary" has an opening trailer showing a basketball player collapsing on court. The obvious suggestion is that vaccines can kill you like they killed that healthy young player. But the scene is from early 2020, before there were vaccines. And the player didn't die. But based on that despicable lie, many people won't get vaccinated and die. How is misinformation not harmful? It's just about the most harmful thing ever conjured up my human minds.
DeleteOf course I don’t dispute that misinformation is harmful. Lots of things are harmful without being illegal, or being considered a threat to democracy.
DeleteIf you can provide the information on that film I would certainly be interested in checking it out. I find it surprising they would have had any need to use old footage. There’s no shortage of footage like that from the past year.
I think almost everybody would agree that misinformation is harmful. The real question is, is misinformation more harmful than granting a small group of elites the authority to determine what constitutes misinformation? Personally, I find the prospect of ruling class elites having complete control over the bounds of accepted truth to be a much greater threat to democracy than letting Cletus believe that the Earth is flat.
DeleteI don't think free speech is the problem. Falsehood is. But, we don't try to outlaw that---it would violate free speech rights.
ReplyDeleteInasmuch as I don't subscribe to most of the notions about reality, based on interest, preference and motive, neither do I cleve to ideas claiming justification, based on an array of speculation and psychobabble. My tablet read the word as, psychopaths---I am more tolerant. But, not much. It matters not that I disagree. It matters less that my disagreement falls upon conservative or moderate views. I have argued excess, exaggeration and extremism are our downfall. These trace their origins back to our cherished freedoms...the worm, ouroboros, chasing his tail....dogs were trying to tell us, all along. Well. You all can figure it out. I need not waste more effort on it.
ReplyDelete“Tolerance is the counterfeit to intolerance.” - Thomas Paine
ReplyDelete…then there’s this one too;
“Every right of suffrage, (including free speech) like any other political right, is not to be measured by some sort of abstract scheme of ‘justice,’ or in terms of any other bourgeois-democratic phrases, but by the social and economic relationships for which it is designed.” - Rosa Luxemburg
I agree that there are certain naive advocates of free speech who are absolutist and unaware of the inherent contradiction of that position. But I do also think that Elon musk and most of the current public advocates who agree with the changes being made on Twitter are fairly sensible. Elon Musk himself has spoken about limits to free speech in one of his recent tweets: "The goal is a trusted digital town square, where a wide range of views are tolerated, provided people don't break the law or spam. For example, any incitement to violence will result in account suspension." This is a fair goal. If it's true that Elon used the term "free speech absolutism" as you say, I think it's a case of bad word choice rather than an actual belief in absolutism.
ReplyDelete"This is a fair goal. If it's true that Elon used the term "free speech absolutism" as you say, I think it's a case of bad word choice rather than an actual belief in absolutism. Agree completely. "The US is at present a Corporate Plutocracy' masquerading as a Democratic Republi,c and its easy to silence someone when you have almost total control of social media. That could be seen quite clearly in the Hunter Biden laptop coverup. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, basically gave corporate control over election by allowing unlimited use of their financial power to shape election outcomes. It essentially made bribery a civil virtue.
ReplyDeletePlease note: my comments made no reference to free speech absolutism. Such attribution is an error or some misunderstanding on the part of the reader.
ReplyDeleteAs others have mentioned, the only people in a position to dictate the truth in this society are the owners and managers of the technocracy and media. The idea that some random youtubers with some goofy ideas are a bigger threat to democracy and freedom than all these giant corporations, government agencies and elite technocrats acting in concert seems rather fanciful, if not disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteAs for “objective truth”, the problem is more how one interprets facts and decides what to do about them. I can accept covid science, despite its apparent confusion, and still question the motives of those promoting the vaccine and choose not to be vaccinated, and I shouldn’t be discriminated against. The heavy-handed way the technocracy attempted to control the covid narrative was the most chillingly Orwellian thing I have seen in all my years in the “land of the free”. And the use of Trump, Russia or nebulous “disinformation” as justifications for technocratic authoritarianism isn’t much better. You need to look at who actually has power in our society and is therefore the biggest threat to freedom; it ain’t random flat-earthers and Trumpists. Maybe the problem is that you belong to the class with this troublesome power, and need to be self-aware enough to see that you could be part of the problem.
I have a couple of questions: 1. Why, just now, are we hearing an indictment of free speech? 2. Can anyone define for me authoritarian populism? And, 3. Are the answers to 1. and 2. interrelated?
ReplyDeleteThe spot-on analyses and observations from some of the recent commenters are a tough act to follow, but here’s another thought: Without a doubt there are still influential people out there who regard physicalism as an “established fact” and would like to suppress discussion of idealism - to protect the public from dangerous misinformation, of course. They would make arguments not unlike the ones you’ve been making to justify this. You know what they would say: Idealism is anti-science, distracts people from responsible living and economic productivity, hurts people by justifying the use of woo woo healing as opposed to scientific allopathic medicine, etc. If you have your way, what makes you so sure you won’t be one of those being censored? Do you think your calling for the censorship of others will keep you off the list?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is embarrassingly obvious: I haven't been censored; Scientific American has published 12 essays by me, all of them supporting idealism and hammering materialism; The IAI has published more than that, and continues to publish; over a dozen different academic journals have published my material; what else do I need to say? Idealism, even though rejected by many because of prejudice, isn't a censored worldview, because it's based on reason and evidence and doesn't contradict established fact. Many anti-vax campaigns do, and are harmful, and are disinformation, and should be censored for those reasons.
DeleteFor my limited contributions to public discourse, I worry little over censorship. Don't need to make a living with writing. As an aside though, my comments have invited controversy and have been censored. I do not mind...wouldn't matter if I did---it is the bloggers' show, not mine.
DeleteYour comment embodies one of the very mistakes described in my essay: free speech does NOT mean that all platforms have to host whatever comments one wants to make on them. I do not want to host certain comments on this blog. That's not a violation of free speech, for your right to free speech does not translate into an obligation by me (or any platform) to host comments that violate my (their) norms and ethical choices; those choices are my (and their) freedom. If you have something you absolutely want to say, start your own blog in your own server; that's the free speech right you do have.
DeleteSounds like outside of philosophical idealism you won't experience any struggle to get your thoughts aired anywhere anyway. They appear to be uniformly in line with all orthodox, mainstream-promoted norms. But there are other voices too.
DeleteAnyway, you are still great! Happy xmas :)
Surely there has been suppression of idealism in recent years, for example on college campuses. It has been suppressed by highly educated intellectuals who are filled with confidence about their grasp of what is “established truth” and what is “misinformation”. You know the type.
ReplyDeleteBut that isn't censure. It's prejudiced opinion, not suppression in the sense of my not being allowed to publish or speak. These are radically different things. In one case, it makes sense for me to fight; in the other, it doesn't. And here I am, fighting.
DeleteIt looks to me like you’re fighting against prejudiced opinion on metaphysics while fighting for censorship on vaccines and whatever other issues you have in mind. That strikes me as an odd juxtaposition.
ReplyDeleteSo you don’t think that some of the people who want to shut down dissent on issues like vaccines would really like to extend that more broadly to suppression of what they consider to be “unscientific” worldviews?
I consider myself something of a 'free speech absolutist' and I have never taken it to mean that I would champion or even remotely condone people calling for genocide of people or for the harm of specific people. The 'absolutism' (admittedly an inflammatory and somewhat unhelpful term really) is about adopting a lot of conservatism towards the tendency of progressive creep where everyone and his dog are terribly keen to set 'conditions' on free speech as long as it concerns a topic they don't like.
ReplyDeleteTHIS, to me is what is naive and short sighed.
And the problem is you do it here - you invoke the spectre of anti-vax propaganda for instance. Firstly- this itself is a problematic term because from where I was sitting i saw plenty of genuine questioning of complete and utter acceptance of the party line get labelled as 'anti vax' and people who were in no remotely meaningful sense anti-vaxers get labelled as such or as 'covid-deniers' (a borderline religious term if ever there was one).
Whilst you seem very angry at anti-vax documentaries I wonder if you are equally angry at somewhere like CNN for letting Rachel Madow repeatedly state in highly public forums that once vaccinated you could not pass the virus onto others - potentially giving millions of people false confidence?
You may well be equally angry at that.. but in the point is, in general I find people are incredibly selective and not terribly consistent or far sighted in where /how they are keen to see these 'imitations' free speech imposed.
Of course you also muddy the waters by invoking the example of Twitter and other privately owned cyberspaces where it is - of course - technically the right of the company to exclude who they want just as it is my right to exclude who i want from my living room.
Of course it would help if places like Twitter actually acted more like the privately owned companies they are and less like a pseudo extension of the government or were less keen to push the fantasy that they represent some kind of 'town square' public service. And needless to say it would help culturally if all of us stopped helping them out by treating them more like the privately owned, heavily mediated technocratic algorithms they are.
badroom-magick, don't even get me started on the puerility of Rachel Madow and Chris Cillizza...
DeleteGuess you should never meet your idols lol Disappointing to see Bernardo's take on this topic. I think everyone and their dog knows public discourse on the covid vaccine, for one, was censored erroneously and harmfully many times. The internet is just fine, physicalists, and looneys, and trolls, and thoughtful contributors all thrown into the same pot just the way it should be.
ReplyDeleteI for one hope that his take is more nuanced. There was indeed a lot of nonsense perpetuated during the pandemic that can be legitimately counted as anti-vax disinformation, but the media allowed the fringe to characterize the entire group. Consequently, those who had crucial and scientifically-based information to share with the world were also censored and demonized simply because it didn't fit the main narrative. This is the type of dynamic that many are fighting against. I'm hoping that Bernardo recognizes this and is speaking against the radical free speech advocates specifically. Everything doesn't go simply because free speech is important.
DeleteBut the problem he also didn't address is that people who don't even at least conceptually understand the idea of our shared being are less likely to censor things fairly. So no matter what side the pendulum swings on, there will always be excessive use of censoring privileges or excessive use of free speech privileges under materialist presumptions. The ego doesn't understand what the right balance is, and most people in the world currently seem to identify with that sense of egoic separation. So do we just let the lesser evil win? And which is the lesser evil? Censoring or free speech? The problem is that powerful members of society are in charge of the censoring and this power can easily get to them. It would be interesting if Bernardo takes these things into account during his analysis.
For Commenter Booker: good point, in my view. This goes towards another idea I have read on a different post from another PI. (Public Intellectual). The notion of a moralometer. A lot of speculation around that one also.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDear Bernardo,
From my point of view the paradox of tolerance is no more an unsolvable paradox than the hard problem of consciousness is ‘hard’. You and Popper understand tolerance as the renunciation of repressing measures in front of an unwanted conduct. Healthy, life- and freedom-sustaining tolerance is in my opinion a specific active mindset, not a passive laissez-faire. For a 3 hour long workshop video on what that mindset looks like and how to cultivate it check out Marshall Rosenberg here https://youtu.be/l7TONauJGfc (the first 15 minutes might suffice for its essence)
Here I put in my words what one needs to hold in their mind in order to act out of healthy tolerance:
“I recognize You as another Me. I recognize that both my and your behavior ultimately is directed by our common need for safety, communion, love, knowledge, experience, meaning, freedom, dignity, health. We both need to grow into an autonomous self-aware subject and to be seen and understood as such. I recognize you as unbounded free will, powerful co-creator of our Family and Home. It is my nature to serve you as a mirror of Truth and remind you of the responsibility coming along with your power. I am profoundly grateful for all your behavior, each of your words and your existence in my awareness. Both your wisdom and your ignorance are my precious teachers and mirror my own unconscious wisdom and ignorance. Therefore I forgive you and I forgive myself for our ignorance and the disservice to life and suffering we cause. I reinforce right now my commitment to firmly and aggressively embody this Truth as it appears here and now unmistakingly clear in front of my bare heart.”
Solutions coming out of this mindset will somehow be connecting, not repressive. Even if they practically end up with deplatforming measures it will be VERY different. I don’t have space here to discuss the “how to”.
I believe this Truth I mentioned in the paragraph above can be coherently derived by your metaphysics, even though it is incredibly arduous to live according to it.
Even misinformation spreaders carry truth. As you brilliantly said in your masterpiece “More than allegory”: “some stories might be factually false, but they always offer a truth about their author”. When I experience the myth of Christ ‘as if it was literally true’ I learn a superior code of conduct, far more effective in promoting intelligent spiritual human growth. Jesus aggressively moved forward, shining his light of love and truth wherever he went. By means of ‘turning the other cheek’ and his crucifixion he reflected back to the oppressor their own ignorant nature. One can’t say his tolerance was passive and ineffective in supporting truth.
Judgment and evaluation are two concurring ways to shape our world. Judgment condemns what ‘shouldn’t’ exist, therefore fights parts of the reality, like an unhealthy organism. Evaluation gives value to things, therefore investing in creating a beautiful reality which will attract other subjects, instead of treating them as objects through the use of force. Attempts to repress with force create resistance, it is true both for the mental processes within our psyche, as well for those within mind at large ;)
I think your article originates out of a judgmental mentality. Enter the mental state of my text above if you find its content to be true - or put on Giraffe’s ears in Marshall’s language - and check again if your vantage point and your position shift a bit.
Lots of love, gratitude and respect to you Bernardo!
Drawing the line between things like "bullying" and "misinformation" is incredibly difficult- indeed: impossible. We subjectively interpret these things to fit our agendas. Leave it open to governments to make those distinctions and you open the door to pure authoritarianism. 1984 thought crime type of authoritarianism.
ReplyDeleteThe real responsibility that needs to be taken is educating people to think critically, to be self-aware and objective, and to check the veracity of the information they consume.
I agree it may seem impossible nowdays that the world has fallen into deep tribalism but truth prevails and freedom is always searched for by the people- sooner or later. Let's not give the monopoly over what is "true" and "free" to any one group who will use it to destroy the world in the end. Have some hope in humanity and treat it like it can handle truth and freedom without some cosmic or governmental dad to regulate it.
I agree James, we all have 'skin in the game' as it were and so adopting a neutral viewpoint is very difficult. It seems much more acceptable, generally, to censor the speech of people whose opinions we don't share. I also think it is very difficult to draw a clear line between censorship and 'no platforming' (which Bernardo seems to draw) in a world where so much power of information dissemination is held in comparatively few hands. If we are to put limits on free speech it should be for clearly defined reasons (e.g inciting violence to a person/s) because free speech/expression is the bedrock of an open democratic society and a key defence against tyranny. If people are deliberating creating disinformation it seems to me better that it is exposed to the light of open scrutiny rather than allowed to fester in the shadows by being censored. It is no accident that the first thing that totalitarian regimes seek to do is to limit free speech, usually by violent means.
ReplyDeleteThis is a slippery slope - because, as someone above noted, who is to be the arbiter of the 'truth?' A few powerful media companies? One political party or another?
ReplyDeleteA moderate approach is taken by the US Constitution in its First Amendment, which was established so people COULD freely exchange ideas, EVEN unpopular ones, without fear that the government would censor or suppress them (or worse). After all, if information from all view points is available, people can decide for themselves what is 'disinformation.'
However, there are limits to free speech in the Constitution, which also could apply here. Such as: fighting words, obscenity (a high threshold to prove), child pornography, libel/slander, crimes involving speech (ie perjury, extortion or harassment), threats, copyright violations, threats, and some commercial speech.
Obviously there is a lot to be said on this topic. In theory I agree with you and Popper that speech intended to end free speech, if not Democracy and Freedom along with it, needs to be treated differently than other speech. But as others have noted this is fiendishly hard to do. Why? Because people who use free speech to devour itself will co-opt any restrictions you put on it in the same way. The problem is con-men, and will to power narcissists, not free speech. The problem is the inherent excess bias in some people to latch onto any BS, and people who spout it, useful to justifying themselves to themselves.
ReplyDeleteHowever we cant stop there and throw up our hands because your core premise is dead on. If a formulation of free speech or any other freedom, inherently facilitates its own overthrow then that formulation is obviously fucked up.
For one thing when many of these freedoms were really fleshed out during the Enlightenment, they had no formal understanding of how rationalizing and bias ridden, rather than objective and rational, and how programable, through simple, repetitive exposure to propaganda, people are. Political philosophy needs to start to take into account our real world cognitive limitations and quirks both as individuals and groups.
One thought I have had was that we should stop judging individual statements and rather look for patterns of speech and action as a way of prosecuting anti-democratic mal-intent. That this might lend itself to a more objective way of preventing someone like Hitler from getting access to real power.
This just scratches the surface..
BTW I think sites like twitter are legally bound to be open access because of their legal claim that they are simply venues and therefore cant be sued or prosecuted for what people say on them. Historically this came out of laws set up for phone companies and has been updated in various communication acts since. Im not really familiar with the details.