No. of Recommendations: 2
This claim is extensively addressed and rebutted by a range of literature, most famously by Karl Popper.
Thank you, I appreciate it. I have for many years admired Karl Popper for his insight that theories should only been given respect and attention if they have the *capacity* to be refuted (but fail being refuted upon all attempts) as distinct from than ideas for which there is no test of refutability (for which there are many still proposed today each day). To put it briefly, respectable theories should be refutable, but not refuted. I could create a theory that there is a green butterfly flying behind you always that can go instantly invisible when it thinks that you, or anyone, is observing it. We can confirm the theory that we indeed cannot see the butterfly. And you cannot prove the theory to be false also. Yet, as there is no test, we don't take the theory seriously. This was one of the most important insights of all time for the development of scientific theory.
But back to speech protection. It is not to be confused with endorsing the idea being expressed. It is rather endorsing the capacity to express the idea and that alone. The word 'free' can mislead us into thinking the focus is on individual freedom, but the function of it is also endorsing rational discourse itself.
The First Amendment is pretty brief to say the least:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
In 1791 when this protection of speech was put in place, there was no internet, no radio, not TV and even newspapers were only just getting started, and even then only locally - you could just about visit everyone's house to personally refute an article if you wanted it. Speech was essentially done as ... speech, and essentially in the context of talking at meetings or in a crowd. If you organized a meeting or a crowd, someone might speak to them - and regardless as to their authority, the 1791 amendment allowed yourself to argue back.
Today we have a problem, however, because information is mostly transmitted in one direction. You hardly get to answer back in a way that everyone can hear you - this makes you feel like a spectator rather than a participant.
For this reason I believe the First Amendment should be, if not updated, then interpreted to give the public more power to have their complaints not just uttered, but actually heard. There was no concept in 1791 of international software firms controlling information flow - who have become immune from the First Amendment. If they existed, the First Amendment would obviously be written completely differently.
On protection of speech, Popper states: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument".
Popper advises in the first half here, and elsewhere, strongly for free speech, writing that it would be unwise to suppress even the unpopular views that people can hardly tolerate. He uses the term 'intolerant philosophies' (which I presume to mean ideas such as re-introducing human slavery, with minute to minute orders, operations at a state wide level) and writes that we should not suppress intolerant philosophies, which I had called disdainful.
But he goes on to say that the some views should be even forcefully suppressed in the case that the speaker isn't prepared to be rational, and as he put 'is denouncing all [rational] argument' itself. Indeed I agree with Popper that an argument is trivially refuted if it is irrational, such as the holocaust not being real, and in my view refutation is sufficient - it doesn't need to be both suppressed and refuted. If someone presents an argument against the holocaust, to take the same ludicrously extreme case, that is sincerely executed with rational argument and evidence, then it should be permitted to be expressed - and then of course promptly refuted.
On the other hand if someone denies the holocaust only to provoke offense and without wanting to participate in any rational discourse about their argument, then Popper can at least make a reasonable case that it should be suppressed. But, as Popper, this is a very narrow case and I would place the burden of reasoning upon the act of the suppressor, rather than a reflexive rule banning ideas based on their subject.
- Manlobbi
