The Care and Feeding of Free Speech
Some conditions apply
The First Amendment of the American Constitution stipulates that: "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."
The amendment is pretty fundamental to American democracy (indeed the idea is pretty fundamental to any constitutional democracy) but doesn't talk about the underlying conditions that make it possible.
Up front we have a statement that the democracy is secular and favors no religion. This is essential for religious freedom but assumes that the various faiths can get along peacefully with each other. History has many examples of what happens if that assumption is not met and it is not pretty.
Next we have a statement about free speech and freedom of the press. This is essential for the freedoms that follow: people need the sort of information that speech provides to know when to peacefully assemble and why and they need accurate information if they are even to detect grievances let alone petition for redress.
What are the conditions required for free speech to be possible?
I suggest that a primary condition is for all participants in the conversation to want to communicate their ideas to the others.
And that condition is harder to meet than we think; it sort of depends on what is communicated.
One person might be speaking of logic and evidence and trying to be persuasive. That's communication.
Another might be speaking of threats of violence unless their dictates are obeyed. That's communication too. Or telling blatant lies.
The point of communication is for society or a group to decide what the best course of action is.
The former kind of communication (lets call it good communication) is what free speech is meant to encourage because it puts a wide variety of information on the table. The course of action that is seen as good when all that information is considered is generally the best available.
The latter sort is corrosive and destructive. That's not just me saying. I think that history shows again and again what happens to a society that is blind to reality. The false ideas lead to bad outcomes and a paranoid search ensues for the cause of the bad outcome.
Years ago my discussions were beset by griefers. These were people who were actively trying to disrupt the conversation. They would do that claiming that they were exercising their right to free speech.
I noticed that the effect of their speech was to shut down the speech of others. On the one hand one would try to hijack whatever topic into their narrow band.
On the other hand another would indulge in hurtful speech that would drive others away.
This is not enhancing free speech yet was defended as being free speech.
For a while the griefers were a part of what was drawing an audience to the discussions; the 'griefer wars' were entertaining to watch. Well - I guess they were - the attendance to discussions was 3 or 4 times what it is now.
This was not good. I present a topic for discussion and I want people to help me explore the topic. I, and the people I want to attract aren't there to just talk about any old thing. The griefers were inhibiting that.
This is Second Life and property owners can just boot people they don't want to have around off the property. The person booted doesn't really have any recourse.
As it happens I have recent experience of being on the other end of the boot. I don't think I'm a griefer but these days the looming threats to democracy have made me into a bit of a one-trick-pony with strong opinions. I took the hint.
Let's return to why we need free speech in the first place; it's to facilitate communication. I don't think communication works if there is a lot of hostility.
And so perhaps we can list some of the conditions that need to be obtained if free speech is to live up to its promise.
We need people who genuinely want to engage in a discussion with each other about something. This involves presenting arguments and supporting facts to each other. It involves a genuine mutual attempt to understand each other.
To this end, one of the prime purposes of public education is to give all citizens a common knowledge base about reality and their society.
In a democracy, that discussion is in the public sphere. We have news stories. We have conventions. We have demonstrations. We have bloggers. So the discussion is not like it is at my discussions in SL.
In the public sphere the purpose of speech is to persuade people to behave (ie vote for this candidate or buy that soap) in a particular way. When a majority of people elect a candidate (for instance) to office that is a reflection of the legal state of society at that moment. So the kind of political speech that most people support is what rules.
But that falls apart if the candidates lie when they run for office. The practical effect of lying is the sort of political polarization our society faces now. People live in different worlds and those who believe lies can't really grasp reality.
Free speech cannot thrive if people are not quite tolerant of differences in behavior and opinion. We are all unique and bring our experience and perspective to discussions and so often disagree. With good free speech this is a feature and not a bug because it includes more information about reality than any one person's personal world.
I engage in discussions. I do it to learn. I get to think about a topic (learning) and write about it (learning) and then discuss it with people with a wide range of other ideas (learning). That last aspect doesn't work without free speech.
What do you think?
I open the floor.
I present regular philosophy discussions in a virtual reality called Second Life.
I set a topic and people come as avatars and sit around a virtual table to discuss it.
Each week I write a short essay to set the topic.
I show a selection of them here.