Freedom of speech is objective morality
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
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?
- 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
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.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
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?Terrapin Station wrote:We have speech that those private owners want to allow rather than censure.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
I think you have an idealised view point.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?
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.
- 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
Yeah, sorry I meant censor there.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 29th, 2020, 10:17 am In, for example, this sentence:
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?Terrapin Station wrote:We have speech that those private owners want to allow rather than censure.
- 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
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"?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.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023