The Philosophy of Free Speech
Whether it is in our personal circles, professional sphere, or society more broadly, Free Speech is what most enables us to discover truth. However, there are many who would argue for limiting speech and imposing censorship on the ideas they consider dangerous. As a free speech absolutist, I welcome this discourse and think it is best that the anon community is equipped with the best version of the argument in favor of freedom of speech.
This article is my collection of the most important points, honed to their most elegant forms, in the discussion of free speech and censorship. I will cover The Purpose of Free Speech, The Problems with Censorship, The Necessity of Bad Ideas, and Strengthening Rational Thought. The fundamentals of these topics do overlap so I will try to limit redundancy, but it is important that each argument is articulated independently and comprehensively. By the end, you will have a clear structure for how to understand and advocate for free speech.
THE PURPOSE OF FREE SPEECH
It is well understood that the most powerful tool for development is evolution; a process of trial and error where positive results are propagated and failures discarded. Necessary to the successful implementation of evolution is a foundation in truth and a complete openness of possibility. This is inherent in the evolution of life as there is nothing more true than the natural world and life does not discriminate on evolutionary paths as long as they lead to success. This same approach can be applied just as effectively to ideas.
In the case of ideas, the arena of free discourse is the environment in which ideas are tested for validity. Through this stress testing, the idea is either proven weak and discarded or made stronger through deeper exploration and articulation. If we do not limit the ways ideas can evolve, they will tend towards truth as truth is inherently stronger than falsehood. It is ultimately free speech that facilitates the necessary environment of truth and openness for ideas to either be exposed as invalid or evolved into their most true incarnation.
Important to note is that new ideas often come from the fringes of society and acceptable thought. The fringe is often mischaracterized or misunderstood as dangerous as this is where the most raw ideas are had and raw ideas are often flawed, incomplete, or untrue. This is inherent to the nature of discovery, the space is unexplored and so pioneers are libel to misinterpret and get things wrong. However, we need to protect our ability to make mistakes and consider what could be wrong ideas as we would otherwise cripple our ability to explore new space and develop new ideas.
Ultimately, it is by accepting any idea and allowing it to be tested in the forum of open discourse that will allow us to discover truth and forge a greater understanding of the world around us. Free speech is fundamental to this process and limiting it through censorship, while not only impossible to do effectively, would more often than not impede progress and make the world less equipped to handle bad ideas in the future.
PROBLEMS WITH CENSORSHIP
Even if we approach the application of censorship with good intentions and intelligence, upon inspection, we can quickly see how inherently flawed this approach is. There is no objective line between good and bad ideas and it would be impossible for man, in his fallible state, to draw a line that is right without exception. Even if we could draw such a line, it is simply not possible to eradicate bad ideas completely. And worst of all, we would also need to consider the very real possibility that any power we create for censorship could find its way into the hands of bad actors and be used for malicious ends.
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
When considering censorship, we must first confront the question of where to draw the line between what ideas should and should not be censored. I would point out that there is no clear, objective distinction between right and wrong. Even amongst smart, well intentioned individuals, people will have different opinions on what is acceptable. Additionally, ideas might be deemed acceptable in some contexts, while unacceptable in others. This nuance is arguably impossible to capture in rules that could be widely applied, making drawing a universally acceptable distinction between good and bad ideas flawed at best.
WHO DRAWS THE LINE
The difficulty of censorship is only further compounded by the inherent fallibility and bias of the people and our decisions. No matter how smart and well intended, whoever is chosen to be the arbiter of what should and should not be censored will inevitably make mistakes. And whether intentionally or not, will bring their own biases to bare on their decision of where the line is. And so whatever thoughtspace that is allowed will be flawed and shaped by the bias of those who create it.
It is also important to consider the possibility that those who we would empower with the responsibility of censorship could use this power with intentional malice, controlling what people are able to say and be exposed to. We must therefore assess the potential of well executed censorship against the very real and arguably inevitable possibility of malicious censorship.
ENFORCING THE LINE
Finally, even if we assume we were somehow able to create a perfect and fair line of what is and is not acceptable, we are still left with the problem of enforcing it. As I will explain, it is impossible to completely eradicate “bad” ideas.
Even if one were to destroy the records of an idea and censor it in every public form possible, these ideas will inevitably be reborn organically in new ideas. Censorship cannot not reach into the chaotic thought space of the mind through which ideas are born and thus, it cannot completely eradicate any idea completely.
When learning and exploring new idea space, it is inevitable that we will consider and be exposed to ideas that are wrong or flawed. As I pointed out earlier, this is necessary for discovering truth as we never know what is right or wrong about a new idea unless we are able to consider and test it. It would be impossible to both allow learning and discovery and be able to censor the “bad” ideas that might be had in the process.
Furthermore, it is impractical to think that people aren’t going to spread wrong ideas intentionally for their own benefit. What good are laws if there are people who will simply not follow them, often to the great detriment of those who do?
THE NECESSITY OF BAD IDEAS
As we have seen from The Purpose of Free Speech and The Problems of Censorship, bad ideas are not only something that cannot be controlled, but are also necessary for the process of learning. Instead of trying to remove bad ideas, we can instead work to build an approach that accounts for and even utilizes bad ideas.
NECESSITY TO BE WRONG
As I pointed out earlier, being able to be wrong is necessary to the process of learning and discovering new ideas. When you are first learning about something that is already well explored, it is not uncommon to misunderstand or follow faulty reasoning. When exploring new territory, even the most experienced professionals must often make educated guesses, risking getting things wrong in an effort to uncover the truth. These are natural and necessary errors respectively and if we were to censor or punish these wrong ideas, it would make it practically impossible to learn or discover.
KNOWING WE BELIEVE IDEAS THAT ARE WRONG
Even with all humanity has learned, we are not infallible. We undoubtedly believe things as true that are in fact false and think things false that are in fact true. So even if we did our best to only censor what we believed to be false, we would still be wrong some amount of the time. It is therefore necessary to create a system that acknowledges there are unknown flaws in what is considered known and allows us to question everything.
LEARNING FROM BEING WRONG
Even if we assume an idea is completely wrong and there is no direct value to it, there is still much indirect value we can cultivate. The discussion of how someone arrived at this idea or and the logic they use to support it can be informative. We can learn where their logic went wrong and avoid those logical fallacies in the future. We can also learn how to have a conversation about ideas and persuade someone who is wrong to see the error in their understanding. So even if a bad idea held no inherent value, we can still benefit from its discussion.
THE GOOD IN THE BAD
Finally, I would point out that the stance that ideas fall into two distinct groups of good and bad is wrong. Ideas are nuanced, being composed of many different premises and logical constructions. Even if the conclusion of an argument is wrong, this does not necessarily mean that all the premises are. Or maybe it is an error in construction, that once corrected, leads to true knowledge. We might also learn how a bad idea was made to be appealing, gleaning important knowledge of rhetoric and psychology. Simply put, there is much potential knowledge to be gained, even from ideas that might be considered bad.
STRENGTHENING RATIONAL THOUGHT
We have seen that censorship is inherently flawed and can never be perfectly executed even if done competently and with good intentions. We have also seen that bad ideas are necessary to learning and discovery. So instead of trying to protect people from being exposed to bad ideas, we can take a much more effective and powerful approach: strengthening the individual’s ability to discern for themselves what is good and what is bad. This will ultimately lead to not only better knowledge, but also a self improving system for doing so.
IMMUNITY FROM BAD IDEAS
The relationship of free speech to censorship is similar to that of natural immunity to isolation. One might think that keeping yourself in a completely sterilized environment would keep you safe from disease, but, in the event you ever were exposed to a disease, your body would have no immune buildup and would fail even against the weakest of attacks. Instead of trying to completely avoid disease, we build our immune system naturally through exposure so that it can learn and become better able to fight against future attack.
We have shown this bubble of censorship to be inherently flawed and if we allow our immune system of rational thought to be weak, we will fall prey to the bad ideas that inevitably break through. Instead, we must strengthen our rational thought through constant exposure to bad ideas, building up an immunity and ability to distinguish good from bad.
SELF IMPROVING SYSTEM
It is also important to note that rational thought not only protects us from bad ideas, but creates a self improving system for discovering, refining, and elevating truth. Every time we discuss an idea, whether it be good or bad, we are strengthening our abilities. We learn common logical fallacies and we start to understand what makes for a well structured argument. We see patterns in the world and start to apply them to other domains. The area of free speech is weight training for our rational thought, strength we can use to protect ourselves from falling prey to bad ideas, and ensuring truth will out.
And as more members develop stronger rational thought, that understanding, like discovering a better technique, will be adopted by others in the group. It is free speech that will not only produce truth and knowledge from the public discourse, but allow us to strengthen our ability for rational thought, making the system itself more powerful and robust.
CONCLUSION
As we have seen, free speech is the foundation upon which learning and discovery rest and the arena where truth triumphs over falsehood. False or even bad ideas are a necessary and inherent part of the learning and discovery process. We must be able to be wrong. Instead of trying to create a bubble of protection from bad ideas that is doomed to fail, we can inoculate the population against bad ideas by allowing them to strengthen their ability for rational thought and being allowed to decide for themselves. That strong rational thought, allowed to flourish under the protection of free speech, will become a self improving system, creating better methods of discovery and learning for our collective quest for truth and understanding.
The debate of free speech versus censorship ultimately askes us where do you put your trust, in the individual or the group and I think by this point you know my answer to that question.
