Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2021, 8:39 am
chewybrian wrote:If we manage to force a lie on the other side, this is not victory for us but a loss for everyone.
I doubt whether many people think of themselves as having forced a lie on the other side. I think most people, on all sides, for a variety of reasons, consider themselves to be telling the truth.
What are your thoughts on free speech absolutism (the idea that all speech, of all kinds, is morally neutral and should not be either morally condemned or legally sanctioned)? Can you see the merits of the arguments in its favour?
In an ideal world, free speech should be protected at all costs. But the benefit of free speech is limited by the people. If they are not well educated and rational and reasonably effective at processing new information....well, you see what has been happening recently here in the states.
I want to believe that people are essentially good and fair and want to do the right thing, but they need a background of understanding and realistic structure to be able to think rationally and process information without filtering it through BS political stances.
Are you familiar with the Fairness Doctrine in the US? It required equal time for political candidates and viewpoints, and time allotted in newspapers and TV for educational programs and programs about community development. Reagan repealed this in the 80's, reasoning that with 100 channels of cable, people were able to find whatever viewpoint they wished, and so they were not denied access to the 'other side'. But, this reasoning missed the mark. Yes, the law was designed to keep powerful people from pushing one side of an issue on the public so they never saw the other side. But, the (perhaps unintended) benefit was that people had to hear the other side to some extent whether they wanted to hear it or not. There was always a chance they would learn something important in the process, or at least see that there were two sides to most issues. I don't think anyone realized the eagerness of most people to retreat into their own thought bubbles and ignore all the information that conflicted with their world view.
So, short story long...No, speech of all kinds is rarely morally neutral. But, who am I or who are you to say which is morally correct or wrong? So, I think we should allow just about every kind of speech. But, we also need to force fair consideration of other views onto people if we can. The fairness doctrine was an attempt to do this, and we need some new efforts along those lines or we are in trouble.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."