Freedom of speech is objective morality

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Steve3007 »

The issue of free speech in the context of social media, like Twitter, has come up again.

As we all presumably know, the US president is a very frequent user of Twitter and he very frequently tweets things are factually untrue. These things are usually referred to as "his rhetoric" and the world has become very familiar with it. Twitter decided to mark one of these with a "fact check", and has subsequently censured another one for "inciting violence".

Trump responded by looking for ways to punish Twitter for this, presumably to deter future censure. He subsequently argued by analogy with telephone lines that the provider of the means of communication (whether social media company or telephone company) has no right, in a free society, to interfere in any way with what is said via that medium, regardless of what is said. Twitter argues that it is a private company and it can do whatever it likes with the messages that people use it for, including enforcing whatever rules it chooses to create and enforce, and if people don't like that they can use another service which is more to their taste or setup their own. The response to that is to say that if Twitter is going to police the contents of its site then that cuts both ways - they will also be held legally responsible for all content posted on that site. Presumably that means that if, for example, someone were to use it to plan a crime, Twitter would be regarded as being an accessory to that crime.

Any thoughts? If a person sets up some means by which people can communicate with each other (like this philosophy site for example) ought they to be legally obliged to let those people say whatever they want on that site without commenting, censuring or censoring? Ought they to be legally obliged not to enforce any rules? Or, since they've set it up and it belongs to them, ought they to be free to enforce whatever rules they choose? If they do enforce rules, is the Trump argument, that they should consequently be legally liable for what is said, valid?

As we know, Twitter didn't remove the posts in question - it didn't censor them, but it did censure them. Would it be a much bigger deal if it had done that?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station »

So, first, I don't see freedom of speech as primarily a legal issue. It's a social issue. The legal aspects reflect the social issue, but the legal aspects certainly do not exhaust freedom of speech.

The issue of freedom of speech is the social control of speech. How that social control is realized is irrelevant--whether it's realized via law or via convention or via some person(s) with power and influence (over a private company, for example) exercising their ability to use their power and influence.

Freedom of speech is a concept that's only necessary when some people are going to say things that we are extremely uncomfortable with, when some people are going to say things that we think are very stupid, when some people are going to say things that we are offended by, when some people are going to say things that we think are dangerous. Freedom of speech is only relevant when there are people who are really going to want to censure the speech in question. Otherwise it would never be an issue that anyone would think about one way or the other.

If speech can control and influence others, then it's important that we don't allow control and influence simply by mob agreement or by people who happen to have money or power. Freedom of speech is important because it actually takes away a lot of speech's ability to control and influence--put all of the ideas out there and let people decide among competing ideas based on their own merit. Folks can't be controlled or influenced by all ideas if we let them all air, because we're always going to have contradictory, non-compatible ideas aired. You can't follow them all. You have to decide based on something other than the fact that someone was allowed to say whatever they said.

That's why it's also important to not censure something just because someone is claiming that it isn't true. That gives the impression that "If so and so was allowed to say that P, then P must be true--otherwise it would have been censured." But that's not at all the case. Nothing is true just because someone said it, just because a lot of people agree with each other, whatever the milieu.

So control of speech--or rather, the lack of being able to control speech--is what matters. If most popular venues are privately-owned, and they happen to be owned by people who want to control speech in particular ways, then we don't have freedom of speech. We have speech that those private owners want to allow rather than censure.

The people who most fervently stress the idea that freedom of speech is a legal issue that isn't relevant to private venues are the people who are the most comfortable with banning some speech. They don't actually value freedom of speech. They value social control of speech, and they're fine controlling it via a "loophole." But that control is the enemy.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Steve3007 »

In, for example, this sentence:
Terrapin Station wrote:We have speech that those private owners want to allow rather than censure.
are you sure that you mean "censure" and not "censor"? If so, then censuring something that somebody says doesn't disallow it. It comments on it negatively. What's wrong with commenting negatively on what somebody else says? We do it here all the time. Should we be allowed to censure (comment negatively on) what other people say, but the owners of platforms like Twitter or the philosophy forum not be allowed to do so?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Sculptor1 »

Philo_stone wrote: May 15th, 2020, 11:56 pm I think people will agree that anything which leads to greater good is moral and anything which hinders it is immoral. I find freedom of speech when logical always lead to greater good and suppressing it spread immoral and evil culture and beliefs. Suppression of speech is always due to evil and immoral practices that people need to be protected to keep their ego intact. Also to hide some of their weaknesses, or fulfill selfish gains.

Whether it's parents suppressing the speech of a child, husband suppressing wife, teacher suppressing student, or clerics suppressing adherents, it always lead to something immoral.

There freedom of speech is always helpful to achieve greater good.

What's your thoughts on this?
I think you have an idealised view point.
Freedom of speech has been suppressed, and is still suppressed for the simply reason that it might, in fact, contribute to the greater good. The makers of morality do so often to protect their own nests, being those of the rich and powerful.

Speaking as a teacher the greater good is very often served by not allowing carte-blanche free speech whenever the child wants to blurt out some irrelevant thought. The resultant class control can lead to greater feats of learning that would otherwise be possible.
How old are you?
You might want to spend sometime in the classroom as a supply teacher with the task of actually trying to teach. One class thug with the notion that he can say what he likes when he likes can very easily destroy the right of the majority to learn.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: May 29th, 2020, 10:17 am In, for example, this sentence:
Terrapin Station wrote:We have speech that those private owners want to allow rather than censure.
are you sure that you mean "censure" and not "censor"? If so, then censuring something that somebody says doesn't disallow it. It comments on it negatively. What's wrong with commenting negatively on what somebody else says? We do it here all the time. Should we be allowed to censure (comment negatively on) what other people say, but the owners of platforms like Twitter or the philosophy forum not be allowed to do so?
Yeah, sorry I meant censor there.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8267
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Philo_stone wrote: May 15th, 2020, 11:56 pm I find freedom of speech when logical always lead to greater good and suppressing it spread immoral and evil culture and beliefs.
The meaning of your words seems to hinge upon what you mean by "when logical". In an extreme example, do you think that suppressing hate speech against people with skin a different colour than yours will "spread immoral and evil culture and beliefs"?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by popeye1945 »

Motivation is a reactive principle and always subjective, that which is reacted to, is ones biological extension, the creation of freedom of speech is biological extension, it is the extension/biological creation, which is objective, the motivation is subjective.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021