Free Speech

[Kylie]

As to Kylie: Bernoulli's theorem is not a comprehensive explanation of lift.

Who said I was talking about Bernoulli's principle? The angle of attack also explains how you can get lower pressure above and higher pressure below.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Not quite. It is a concept which has been politicized. The ideal behind free speech, as a concept, was to guarantee protection for important or unpopular speech, like speaking out against corruption. But, there is no law, or set of laws which can guarantee righteousness in all circumstances for all people. This is one of the most significant lessons from the OT. Genuinely free speech is only possible when it is regulated by wisdom.






This is the problem with referring to the concept of free speech as free speech. Calling it "free" gives the impression that there should be no restriction whatsoever, and yet there is no human on the earth who genuinely believes that. If someone is lying about you in a way that hurts you, your family, your ideology, or your business, you will not say that he has a right to tell such lies. The intent behind the phrase was never meant to justify all speech of any kind for any reason. Rather, it's meant to communicate that people should have the freedom to speak up without fear of punishment if they see a problem.

Perhaps it is a maturity issue. Americans, in particular, have become so high on their own sense of righteous freedom that they've twisted it to suggest that any person opinion becomes fact by virtue that you have the freedom to express it.

In an essay by C.S. Lewis on the rather barbaric practice of vivisection (performing surgery on animals without anesthetic), he notes that many supporters of the practice justify it on the basis that we humans are superior to animals and therefore have the right to do with them as we please.

Lewis concedes that we are superior to animals, but only in so much as we behave in a superior way. Obviously, disregarding the pain we cause to others just because we can is not superior behavior. It's a bit like the king who feels the need to say, "I am the king"; when he does that, he is no longer a king.

Freedom, as a concept, only has merit when it is interpreted through the context of integrity, character, and wisdom.

I had thought that the context here would be enough to realize that when I use the word free, I mean freedom from coercion by the government. I don't mean by free that one can do or say whatever one wants. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and for very sound rational reasons. The alternative to free speech is the government, or the church, or the group diciding what ideas can be uttered and what not. Do you want that? Would you want Mormons being raided because they are spreading falsehood? I sure don't. As I said, if your speech harms someone then the government can and should properly step in to rectify.

My view on animals is that they don't have rights like Humans do. But that doesn't mean we should be cruel to them and I don't think a rational person would. Phsycopaths probably would. Anyone who causes pain for the sake of causing pain is not acting on the morality of life. Weather he knows it or not he has death as his standard of value.

It's important to rember context here. While you have the right to speak and express ideas that are false, so long as you do not harm others, you don't have the moral right to do it. There can be no such thing as the moral right to fake reality.

Freedom has merit as a political concept because it is a real, objective need of Man to be free. A long with that freedom comes the freedom to be wrong. Again I speak of freedom from coertion, not the freedom to do anything you want.

 

[John Helpher]

I had thought that the context here would be enough to realize that when I use the word free, I mean freedom from coercion by the government. I don't mean by free that one can do or say whatever one wants. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and for very sound rational reasons.

There's been a lot of comments so I can't remember precisely what you've said, but thanks for clarifying your position.

The alternative to free speech is the government, or the church, or the group diciding what ideas can be uttered and what not. Do you want that?

Yes, of course, because governments, churches, and groups are all made up of people. Ideally we'd have some sort of unity on what we understand to be wise speech verses hate speech, foolish speech, or slanderous speech. The more we encourage wise speech, the more support we will find for it along the way.

The question of deciding what is wise speech, or foolish, hateful, slanderous speech will always require a case by case consideration. That's what makes it tricky, but that's also what gives it its integrity. Laws can be helpful as guidelines, but there is never a time when we can rely on laws to do our thinking for us. There is no set of laws which can account for all circumstances for all people at all times.

That's what wisdom is for.

Would you want Mormons being raided because they are spreading falsehood?

Maybe. Depends on what the falsehood is. That's how wisdom works; nothing is ruled out de-facto; all options are considered until they are eliminated through critical thinking. Now, if a Mormon adherent is teaching that people must believe their special book is the only truth available, that would be a falsehood which would not warrant a raid. But, if a group of Mormons was using its religious respectability to secretly facilitate a child trafficking ring, while, on the surface, dishonestly proclaiming that child trafficking is wrong, then yes, that would probably warrant a raid of which ever structure was being used to hold the children.

As I said, if your speech harms someone then the government can and should properly step in to rectify.

The problem with using harm as the guiding factor is that it is extremely subjective. Going to the dentist results in harm (even with anesthetic there's the possibility of pain, as well as soreness and headaches after the anesthetic wears off), but we accept the harm because we understand the reasoning behind it is not hateful.

Even dishonesty can be an unreliable factor. If an ax murderer comes to your door looking for the victim you just agreed to help, it'd be immoral to tell the truth!

We need a more reliable guiding factor than whether or not harm will result, and I believe it is wisdom and sincerity. Wisdom is what will help us determine the reason behind the harm and come to a right decision as to how to handle it.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

There's been a lot of comments so I can't remember precisely what you've said, but thanks for clarifying your position.

Thank you. I try to make my posts as short as possible with the willingness to clarify if asked.

Yes, of course, because governments, churches, and groups are all made up of people. Ideally we'd have some sort of unity on what we understand to be wise speech verses hate speech, foolish speech, or slanderous speech. The more we encourage wise speech, the more support we will find for it along the way.

The question of deciding what is wise speech, or foolish, hateful, slanderous speech will always require a case by case consideration. That's what makes it tricky, but that's also what gives it its integrity. Laws can be helpful as guidelines, but there is never a time when we can rely on laws to do our thinking for us. There is no set of laws which can account for all circumstances for all people at all times.

That's what wisdom is for.

I see, so if the majority of people decide in their wisdom that Christianity is false and spreading it is spreading falsehoods, you'd be OK with the government banning the teaching of Christianity. That's what I take away from your statements. According to many Christians I've talked to, (all actually) Mormonism is a false religion. It teaches untruths. It leads people away from the true God. Would you want it banned?

Maybe. Depends on what the falsehood is. That's how wisdom works; nothing is ruled out de-facto; all options are considered until they are eliminated through critical thinking. Now, if a Mormon adherent is teaching that people must believe their special book is the only truth available, that would be a falsehood that would not warrant a raid. But, if a group of Mormons was using its religious respectability to secretly facilitate a child trafficking ring, while, on the surface, dishonestly proclaiming that child trafficking is wrong, then yes, that would probably warrant a raid of which ever structure was being used to hold the children.

What about the fact that most Christians think that Mormonism is false teaching and endangers the souls of those who accept it. Suppose Mormons become the majority of people in the world and they declare that Christianity is false teaching, would it be right for the government to arrest people for preaching Christianity?

The problem with using harm as the guiding factor is that it is extremely subjective. Going to the dentist results in harm (even with anesthetic there's the possibility of pain, as well as soreness and headaches after the anesthetic wears off), but we accept the harm because we understand the reasoning behind it is not hateful.

Actually, it's not in many cases. In court, you have to show objectively, on facts, that you have been harmed. You can't just go in there with some complaint that you can't back up. They'll throw the case out.

Even dishonesty can be an unreliable factor. If an ax murderer comes to your door looking for the victim you just agreed to help, it'd be immoral to tell the truth!

I agree with you 100% here. I'd go further and say that you have a moral obligation to lie to the best of your ability while plotting how to kill that person if you can. An ax murderer has forfeited any claim to rights.

We need a more reliable guiding factor than whether or not harm will result, and I believe it is wisdom and sincerity. Wisdom is what will help us determine the reason behind the harm and come to a right decision as to how to handle it.

Whose wisdom? That reliable standard is the facts of reality discovered by an objective method. That's the only reliable standard.

 

[John Helpher]

I see, so if the majority of people decide in their wisdom that Christianity is false and spreading it is spreading falsehoods, you'd be OK with the government banning the teaching of Christianity. That's what I take away from your statements.

That is unfortunate. No, I am not promoting a mob mentality. I am saying that wisdom should be our guide. One aspect of wisdom is recognizing that there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors. This is why I said that sincerity is necessary. Perhaps some day you will find yourself the last, sincere person on earth, standing against all the odds. If that is the case, then even though all the world be against you, yes, you must stand your ground.

But, on the other hand, a person who cannot accept or even seek counsel from others is likely to be a loose cannon. Wisdom will look for others of its own kind.

No, of course I would not be okay with the government banning Christianity, but neither was that the issue you raised. You asked if I'd have a problem with the government raiding a religious community. I said it depends on what the falsehoods are.

What about the fact that most Christians think that Mormonism is false teaching and endangers the souls of those who accept it.

Chew the meat and spit out the bones. Remember that parable Jesus told about the weeds and the wheat? No group will be all good, and no group will be all bad. Wisdom will not judge by group affiliation, but rather it will take time to consider every person on an individual basis. Yes, it is more time consuming, it is more labor intensive, it requires more thought and attention, but it is ultimately the better way. If you were to be judged, wouldn't you want the utmost attention and consideration for every detail of your case from your judge rather than a quick and easy lumping-in with some group which may not express the subtle nuance of your spirit?

Suppose Mormons become the majority of people in the world and they declare that Christianity is false teaching, would it be right for the government to arrest people for preaching Christianity?

No, but remember the context; we were talking about falsehoods. The teachings of Jesus are not false, and therefore anyone condemning them would, themselves, be false. That would fall under persecution.

Whose wisdom?

Jesus' wisdom, of course. He is the standard. That's why it's so important to take his teachings seriously. When Jesus says, "you will be judged in the same way you judge others", that's an important clue regarding how to discern what is wise judgement. If I'm judging a person in a way that I would not like to be judged, then I'm not obeying Jesus' teaching on judgment, and therefore my judgment will not be wise.

 

[Ophiolite]

Would it not be possible to remove some of the problem areas through the use of "opinion". Thus:

• "Fred Bloggs is a pedophile" - Uncacceptable
• "Fred Bloggs is a pedophile and here is the evidence." - Acceptable
• "It is my opinion that Fred Bloggs is a pedophile." - Acceptable

The latter is acceptable because unsupported opinions can be readily ignored.

 

[durangodawood]

Both of these answers are incorrect. As to Kylie: Bernoulli's theorem is not a comprehensive explanation of lift. As to Hedrick: we understand that certain things produce lift, but we don't fully know why. It's not a question of technical vs non-technical explanations.

Or: Just read the article I posted (or any of the others that have been written on this topic).

It will be science that figures it out, and not some other mode of inquiry like deep introspection or divine revelation.

 

[Chriliman]

That is unfortunate. No, I am not promoting a mob mentality. I am saying that wisdom should be our guide. One aspect of wisdom is recognizing that there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors. This is why I said that sincerity is necessary. Perhaps some day you will find yourself the last, sincere person on earth, standing against all the odds. If that is the case, then even though all the world be against you, yes, you must stand your ground.

But, on the other hand, a person who cannot accept or even seek counsel from others is likely to be a loose cannon. Wisdom will look for others of its own kind.

No, of course I would not be okay with the government banning Christianity, but neither was that the issue you raised. You asked if I'd have a problem with the government raiding a religious community. I said it depends on what the falsehoods are.



Chew the meat and spit out the bones. Remember that parable Jesus told about the weeds and the wheat? No group will be all good, and no group will be all bad. Wisdom will not judge by group affiliation, but rather it will take time to consider every person on an individual basis. Yes, it is more time consuming, it is more labor intensive, it requires more thought and attention, but it is ultimately the better way. If you were to be judged, wouldn't you want the utmost attention and consideration for every detail of your case from your judge rather than a quick and easy lumping-in with some group which may not express the subtle nuance of your spirit?



No, but remember the context; we were talking about falsehoods. The teachings of Jesus are not false, and therefore anyone condemning them would, themselves, be false. That would fall under persecution.



Jesus' wisdom, of course. He is the standard. That's why it's so important to take his teachings seriously. When Jesus says, "you will be judged in the same way you judge others", that's an important clue regarding how to discern what is wise judgement. If I'm judging a person in a way that I would not like to be judged, then I'm not obeying Jesus' teaching on judgment, and therefore my judgment will not be wise.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say and agree it’s very important to consider Jesus’ teachings and what the Bible as a whole teaches, however, there are extremely nuanced issues in our modern society that neither Jesus or the Bible really addresses, like intersex for example. This is where I think we need the Holy Spirit or “real time wisdom” that can speak to modern issues that don’t have direct answers from scripture. Is that making sense?

 

[John Helpher]

Is that making sense?

No, not really. I don't understand what intersex issues have to do with free speech. Would you mind elaborating?

 

[Chriliman]

No, not really. I don't understand what intersex issues have to do with free speech. Would you mind elaborating?

You’re right, it’s kinda off topic. What I’m trying to say is there’s modern issues that scripture doesn’t address which is why we need to rely on wisdom, like you said, in order to discern what’s true and right regarding those issues.

 

[John Helpher]

You’re right, it’s kinda off topic. What I’m trying to say is there’s modern issues that scripture doesn’t address which is why we need to rely on wisdom, like you said, in order to discern what’s true and right regarding those issues.

Oh, thanks for clarifying, Chriliman.

 

[Chriliman]

Oh, thanks for clarifying, Chriliman.

Sure thing. Would you agree?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

We have libel and slander laws, laws against inciting riots, laws against sharing confidential information with people who don't have a security clearance, we used to have laws against false advertising although to what extent those still exist I'm unsure.... some speech is illegal under conspiracy laws like conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit treason..

Pretty much everything else is open game, and should be because you get into the whole whose truth gets to be defined 'true'...

And remember, the freedom of speech in the constitution primarily concerned the freedom of political speech because without it you can't have an informed public and a healthy republic...

Freedom of religious speech is covered under religious freedom laws separately I believe.

 

[John Helpher]

We have libel and slander laws, laws against inciting riots, laws against sharing confidential information with people who don't have a security clearance, we used to have laws against false advertising although to what extent those still exist I'm unsure.... some speech is illegal under conspiracy laws like conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit treason..

Pretty much everything else is open game, and should be because you get into the whole whose truth gets to be defined 'true'...

And remember, the freedom of speech in the constitution primarily concerned the freedom of political speech because without it you can't have an informed public and a healthy republic...

Freedom of religious speech is covered under religious freedom laws separately I believe.

Thanks Hazel. This is a good summary.

 

[John Helpher]

Sure thing. Would you agree?

You mean, would I agree that the Bible does not address every circumstance and context for all time for every person and therefore wisdom is required on a case by case basis to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to which speech is appropriate and which is not? Yes.

That is why I'm advocating for wise speech as opposed to free speech. Wise speech already covers all the best that free speech has to offer while necessarily excluding hate speech, slander, and foolishness.

 

[OddityCrisis]

Malicious & fiscally predatory lies are about the only lies that should be barred by penalty of law.

 

[hedrick]

Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.

You need to separate ethics from laws. Clearly the right to free speech does not include a right to spread falsehood. However there are practical reasons why it may be a mistake to make falsehood illegal except in certain situations.

 

[Kylie]

Malicious & fiscally predatory lies are about the only lies that should be barred by penalty of law.

But where do you draw the line?

What if someone says that such-and-such a treatment will cure a particular disease, but they really know it won't and they're just saying it to get a quick buck from an ill person. I'm sure you'll agree that would count as malicious and fiscally predatory.

But what happens if someone says the same thing but genuinely believes that the treatment will work?

 

[John Helpher]

What if someone says that such-and-such a treatment will cure a particular disease, but they really know it won't and they're just saying it to get a quick buck from an ill person. I'm sure you'll agree that would count as malicious and fiscally predatory.

Yes, of course.

But what happens if someone says the same thing but genuinely believes that the treatment will work?

We investigate. We look for evidence of the claim. People often genuinely believe falsehoods, and they can make a passionate plea to support their case based on that belief. That's worth considering.

But, there should also be some other corroborating evidence than just an impassioned, personal belief. Are there any other witnesses who also believe the same thing? Is there a means of testing the treatment and if so, how? What is this person's track record with regard to money issues and trustworthiness?

Who are this person's business associates? Are there any conflicts of interest? Does this person have any practical experience in the field in which he's making a claim? If not, is he able to point to any corroborating expert who does have experience in this field? Does that corroborating expert have any conflicts of interest?

There are many ways to discern if a person is worth hearing, or if he should be shut up, but these methods are only as good as the integrity of those who exercise them.

Again, this is why I say that we should be promoting wise speech, as wisdom necessarily suggests integrity.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, of course.



We investigate. We look for evidence of the claim. People often genuinely believe falsehoods, and they can make a passionate plea to support their case based on that belief. That's worth considering.

But, there should also be some other corroborating evidence than just an impassioned, personal belief. Are there any other witnesses who also believe the same thing? Is there a means of testing the treatment and if so, how? What is this person's track record with regard to money issues and trustworthiness?

Who are this person's business associates? Are there any conflicts of interest? Does this person have any practical experience in the field in which he's making a claim? If not, is he able to point to any corroborating expert who does have experience in this field? Does that corroborating expert have any conflicts of interest?

There are many ways to discern if a person is worth hearing, or if he should be shut up, but these methods are only as good as the integrity of those who exercise them.

Again, this is why I say that we should be promoting wise speech, as wisdom necessarily suggests integrity.

So you are suggesting that we treat the same actions differently depending on the person's belief about the action?

What happens if someone promotes some quack cure for a terrible illness just in the hopes of making a quick buck, but when they are caught, they claim they genuinely thought it would help?