John Stuart Mill in his discussions in “On Liberty” advocated complete freedom of speech as he believed that through open dialogue and discussion the ultimate truths would be discovered and wrong or harmful ideas would be removed.
I’m wondering if he would still believe this in the 21st century. With the Internet and the media in general it seems that misinformation and harmful ideas swamp any truths. For example how much time is devoted to UFO’s, ESP, and New age beliefs compared to any proper Scientific discussion.
Also old false beliefs, and rumours are being perpetuated when the evidence to the contrary is ignored or given little time. (for example Urban legends and myths like Europeans believed the world was flat before Columbus’s voyage)
On top of this should we really protect the right of (for arguments sake) paedophiles to discuss their ideas on children as a freedom of speech. I believe Mill’s theory has been disproved by the reality of mass communication.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here – that we ought to prohibit discussion of silly things that aren’t true like UFO’s and crystals?
Since I personally lump “God” and “Oswald had co-conspirators” into that group, I hope you have a pretty good set of folks picked out to determine what is true enough to warrant unfettered discussion.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here – that we ought to prohibit discussion of silly things that aren’t true like UFO’s and crystals?
not at all. I’m just suggesting that idea that the total freedom of speech will improve society in general is incorrect. The open dialogue has done little on the internet. No solutions have come from discussions as most of them tend to either entrench a belief (right or Wrong)or end up degrading into triaval matters.
I do believe that certain bans should coem about as there are also dangerous or harmful modes of thinking that possibly should not be given air (net) time like Hate groups etc.
Your first point is well taken – in a medium where any idiot can say something, we shouldn’t be surprised when a lot of them do. That’s OK – things take time. There’s some pretty good stuff out there (well, in here, too!) if you care to look.
As to your other point, I’m honored that you have chosen me to be the arbiter of what is hate speech and may therefore be limited. What’s that, you didn’t pick me? Then who did you pick?
And if we shut up the hate groups, how in the world are we ever going to find them?
I agree that in some cases open discussion can lead to a better understanding but should that be a unchecked absolute freedom?
Are there really no certainties?
Do we really need to hear the other side of an argument for the use of children in pornography, or a group which would tell us the Holocaust was a myth created by Jews for sympathy?
And what of the old arguments that keep getting dredged up after they have been thoroughly refuted such as that one racial group is superior to another?
Is there not a point where someone has to judge and say enough?
I don’t doubt for a moment that complete freedom of speech is not the best solution and that free discourse iterates towards truth is a naive view. However, the question of what rule is better and who could be trusted to enforce it is rather less clear.
Free discourse may not move us inevitable toward the truth, or even to greater understanding; but if it does not, then what other process would you suggest? (Careful how you answer, lest you be accused of being “naive.”)
kingpengvin: “Do we really need to hear the other side of an argument for the use of children in pornography, or a group which would tell us the Holocaust was a myth created by Jews for sympathy?”
Doesn’t the fact that there are people who make such arguments demonstrate the need to refute those arguments? Silencing a belief only hides it from the light of reason.
From debate we learned the following about Mill. His belief was that there was a “marketplace of ideas.” The principle behind this was that if we put all the ideas out and let people chose for themselves, the best will naturally rise to the top and the worst will be rejected by most. True? I think so.
My feeling is this: by limiting free speech one:
a) makes further freedom more easily curtailed
b) tells you that you can’t receive Thought A because it is offensive to someone else
I remember a quote that went something like “beware he who would deny you information, for in his heart he wishs to be your master.”
Sure some (actually MOST) people say dumb things, but thats all relative. If you compare societies that prohibit of freedom of speech, they usually still allow you to say stupid things. Its the important, socially progressive ideas that they prohibit. For example, 1984 by George Orwell, you could go to the movies and watch some moronic, gory movie, but you couldn’t say “I hate Big Brother.”
Why? There’s no danger of revolution in watching a gory movie. If you say “I hate Big Brother” you reveal that you have a thought that may endanger authority.
Yes. Because those people are going to believe it anyway. And they are going to spread it one way or another. So it’s much better to have it out in the open where it can be debated and debunked by the rest of us.
If you have termites in your house, do you want to be able to see them and therefore realize that you need to do something about them, or would you rather not know about them and eventually have your house fall in on you?
What about them? Who makes the call as to when an argument is sufficiently refuted that it should be banned? What if new information comes to light?
No. There is not such a point. At least not for the government. Privately run operations (such as the SDMB) can certainly judge when such a point has been reached. But not the government.
Hi guys, I’m new to this whole thing so bear with me.
I beleive that Mill’s marketplace of ideas and the necessity of free speech in a society in order to ferrett out the truth to be correct, but this is based on the preconception that:
The debate be fueled by correct base information. and
That the speech be truly free.
There is an ongoing question as to whether either of these are true in modern american society. No specific cite, but try reading anything by Noam Choamsky. He has devoted his entire professional life to this question.
I’ll second David B, here. If you suppress that information, then the people who want to disseminate it will be able to wrap it in a package labeled “They Don’t Want You To See This” and everyone who comes across the drek (and the package) will be more likely to but into the lies because it has been suppressed.
I believe that a core element of JSM’s chapter is the assumption that people, given the chance, will judge an argument on its rational basis. It is only under this presupposition that his theory works, and yet most people have never been taught formally how to rationally evaluate arguments.
Agreed. Furthermore, JSM also argues that having false information out in the open facilitates a better understanding of the truth. Without a clear perception of the enemy, the truth becomes complacent - or, as JSM terms, “dead dogma”.
Even though there is a danger of much ‘incorrect’ information being available, the pros IMHO outweigh the cons.
The question is ‘Who decides what remains hidden?’, and it is almost answered ‘By those that already have the power.’ Thus any censorship is a cover for the status quo, however good or bad (in whosoever’s opinion).
At least in Britain we will never again have the government successfully suppressing large amounts of true and pertinent information- the internet has blown that wide open.
I am 16, and the person that has had the most influence on me, my mother, is a very traditional core-values type of Catholic. My mother began taking my to our church since I was born, and I’ve hardly ever missed more than a few days of church each year.
I used to be very close-minded about things such as homosexuality and other such topics. Thanks to the internet, and communities like the SDMB I’ve come to realize that my predjudices were ill-founded on religious rhetoric.
If not for the internet, and it’s freedom of speech I cannot say that I would be the same person that I am now. I may be warring with myself over the existence of God, but I know now that regardless of things such as sexual preference, people should be treated as such, people. If not for the great freedom of expression and ideas that the internet offers, I would still have a very conservative mindset and wouldn’t really be ready for the world at all. Thanks to the fact that the internet has no limits and any subject can be breeched I have found my way into the truth.
If you started limiting what could be talked about on the net (good lord, the children could be watching!) because some ideas aren’t exactly of “wholesome values” where is the line drawn? I mean, if you can ban sites made in jest for their stupidness, why not ban a site for its inflamatorry nature (inflamatory for the good mind you, protesting the restriction or loss of a basic human right, for example) just because it doesn’t preach to keeping things nice and steady, keeping those in power that were already in power.
And what need is there of places like the SDMB? Why should people talk to each other and share ideas? Why, that’s the breeding ground of such evil things as new values and morals, and even a greater understanding of your fellow man! Geez, how can you live with yourselves, spreading all that propoganda and all those lies and your message board! You should all be thrown in jail and the key tossed away.