So I saw this video on YouTube. User ‘LiberalViewer’ presents a few examples of contemporary media criticism of speech overwhelmingly held by the general population as false and extremely offensive, and then suggests that this criticism is poorly targeted because it implies that such speech should be suppressed- which would violate the right of freedom-of-speech.
He makes a good argument, but it felt wrong in my gut (more nerve endings than your brain, remember) and a moment later my brain caught up and I realized why: Repeated public assertion of a statement creates a perception that the statement must have some merit, otherwise it would no longer be asserted.
Obviously, I’m missing some well-hashed debate ground here, since libel and slander aren’t protected by freedom of speech, and the American truth-in-advertising act wasn’t struck down as violating our first amendment. On the other hand, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that flat-earth conventions be banned, and the ACLU keeps defending hate speech on the grounds that the basis used to censor it could be used to censor anything else. I agree with the ACLU’s positions more often than not- although not much more often- but I’ve never considered the freedom-of-hate-speech issue from the perspective of suppressing misleading presentation of unquestionably false statements.
So, what’s the Straight Dope on this? Does freedom of speech really require that we allow people to publicly lie with impunity?
Do you consider erroneous opinions to be lies? You might consider these statements “false facts.” Someone might say, for example, that it is a fact that the earth was created six thousand years ago. For many people, that is not a lie. They believe that they are speaking the truth. We certainly shouldn’t censor their speech. And since we can’t look into each mind to know the motives, we shouldn’t censor those who deliberately lie.
There are exceptions when laws and professional standards are broken. And liars have to face the consequences of their actions.
Who says they’re lying? I’m not just being quarrelsome; that’s a very important question. The Holocaust deniers are expressing a belief. They have no first-hand knowledge of what did or didn’t occur in Europe in the 1940’s, and odds are you don’t either. For most of us, it’s a matter of belief. As for “hate speech,” that’s almost all opinions. Opinions usually can’t be shoehorned into categories like “truth” and “lie.”
No matter how offensive some viewpoints might be, do you really want to give the government the authority to criminalize beliefs and opinions? What if the Thought Judge (or committee, or whoever) decides that some belief that you hold dear is “obviously wrong,” and deeply offends someone-or-other, and you’ll go to jail if you ever express it again.
Basically, criminalizing beliefs and opinions, even highly offensive ones, opens the door to a very scary place.
If impunity means that they must not be prevented from telling lies, the answer is yes - because any sort of Govt. Bureau for the Suppression of Lies quickly leads to big trouble.
But freedom of speech never properly means freedom from being held accountable for what you say. So liars can (and should) be exposed, ridiculed and forced to confront the consequences of their statements.
I’m less interested in very offensive beliefs and opinions than in very false ones. I suppose what I need to begin with is a very clear definition of an opinion, as opposed to a mere falsely stated fact. While the more complex the position, the more difficult to adhere to strict concepts of truthfulness, I’m of the opinion (whatever, exactly, that is) that The Holocaust Of The Jews is something that either did or did not happen. I don’t think I can be of the opinion that the Holocaust happened; I think I can believe that it happened, as all facts true and false are held in the mind as beliefs, but my personal definition of opinion restricts it to situations in which there is uncertainty in either the facts or the meanings of the other words being used.
What unsettles me about LiberalViewer’s argument (which I do not claim to have an effective counter-argument to) is that it ignores the subtext of legitimacy that unchecked false statements can acquire, whether they be intentional lies or merely mistaken beliefs. Back when the tobacco industry was still claiming cigarette smoking was harmless, would an industry executive’s statement that he believed his company’s product was harmless be protected by free speech? One man’s belief stated to others is not an advertisement, but by virtue of his position in the company any statement he makes sounds authoritative. What does American law have to say about that?
Similarly, when enough people with impressive titles get together and discuss how the Holocaust didn’t happen, the subtext is that if all these people can freely meet and discuss the issue then it must have some legitimacy. If the problem is that the meeting shouldn’t create such a subtext, then there is a very serious question of how and why people are influenced in such ways and whether and how that can be combated.
No it is not. It is not a crime to believe or be of the opinion that some group is bad/wrong/icky/won’t get into heaven/should be put to death.
It is a crime to commit an act of violence against someone and it may be an additional crime to do so if you were motivated by something like the victim’s religion or skin color, because that can be seen as an attempt to terrorize an entire group of people, not just the person who got beat.
I know that we’ve had a couple of threads on hate crime laws recently, they should be easy to search for.
I believe that in most cases, allowing liars to lie, then be exposed, debunked, ridiculed and shamed, is the best thing to do. (Qualifying the phrase ‘most cases’: I believe allowing them to do that is what we should always try to do - it’s just that only in most cases does it work out for the best).
Freedom of speech means people can talk utter bollocks, but not with impunity, because the same freedom of speech allows you to respond - publicly identifying their statements as utter bollocks.
I was following the white rabbit on Wikipedia when I stumbled upon the article for the Big Lie, in which Adolf Hitler is quoted from Mein Kampf and mentions exactly what I’m distressed by:
(emphasis mine)
Mangetout, your position seems to imply that Free Speech requires vociferous denial of falsehoods by the general public, but I certainly don’t get the feeling that that’s encouraged here in America. If anything public protesting is perceived as obnoxious. Look at the ineffectiveness of anti-smoking ads.
Is the attitude toward public debate significantly different in other countries with Free Speech?
Not requires - permits. I guess you could apply market dynamics to it - if enough people care that something is wrong, they’ll usually do something about it.
And not just the general public - if figures in the media can say the wrong stuff, then other figures in the media can correct them.
Obviously that’s all a bit simplistic a view, but what’s the alternative? - it’s difficult to see how you could every have an imposed system of ‘good free speech only’, without the risk of fostering development a 1984-style Ministry Of Truth.
Let people air their ridiculous or incorrect views, and let public scorn and derision show it for what it really is. Locking things away doesn’t stop them happening - it only makes people ignorant of them - in a way, it’s good that the holocaust deniers get to speak, because the thinking world can thus be alerted to them.
It may seem like a good idea until you realize that there exists Someone who will get to decide what the Truth is.
Similarly, I don’t trust the opinions of the ignorant, racist, creationist voting public, but I’d distrust those in charge of weeding them from the polls even more.
As you noted, people are not allowed to lie with impunity, and in some cases they’re not even allowed to tell the truth (for example, when National Security is an issue). Prior restraint is also allowed with regard to statements that are an “incitement to violence” or “fighting words,” regardless of the perceived truth of those statements.
That said, yes, if you allow free speech, you have to allow lying. Once somebody seizes the right to decide what the truth is and the power to punish people who aren’t telling the truth according to him, what do you think will happen to free speech?