|
Or alternatively: Societal Transition and the Growth of Nuance in Thought and Policy
This thinking was a result of the pedophile book thread (The reason I'm not just putting this in the thread is because it's something I've been thinking about and I believe is valid or worth discussion even if the book is a massive troll and that it's applicable to much beyond that.), which I was posting in about how I don't really believe in free speech the way it's construed by people defending the decision to have the book on the legitimate market, that we have to accept this kind of speech in order to "have freedom" (quotes because freedom is so ill-defined or non-existent in the way people were defining it to me). It sort of disappointed me that in our sophisticated society people aren't seeing deeper than "freedom good, restriction bad."
What I mean is as follows. It's sort of an offshoot of something I'm familiar with, theories of demographic transition, into more applying it to ideologies and social structures/culture (which I'm not as familiar with so if there's serious academic research into this, direct me to it...). The Benjamin Franklin quote people throw around is an example I'd like to use (on sacrificing freedom for security). When he said that, America was a fledgling country that was just escaping from control of an imperial monarchy. At that time, it was important for establishing what we now see as a more modern way of thinking to embrace as much freedom of speech and other freedoms in order to develop, as the issue of governmental tyranny was a very present danger. Similarly the Enlightenment in Europe had just over the past century significantly influenced people's thinking away from the religious tyranny of the dark ages and such.
We could say Western society was very early in its development of our modern systems of thinking, basically like a child, and therefore the messages it needs to be presented with are necessarily straightforward and blunt, like "freedom at all costs." which responded to a significant harm of the day and could be digested by the populace that was relatively new to this applying rational thought without being directly ruled thing. You can't get a society new at that to absorb the nuances that we can see today exist in the freedom question, the foundations need to be laid first (although I'm sure philosophers of the time had extremely prescient things to say).
This is why I see the question of opposing censorship in speaking against the Church in the Dark Ages and censorship today as two completely different questions. In the societies of developed countries today, we are quite far removed from that in terms of the amount of education and information the citizenry possess. The level of sophistication among average people is incomparable to any previous historical period, and the social structures we've built reflect that sophistication. Does anyone deep down really think anymore that the United States is going to become a truly repressive regime that is going to suppress dissent and rule its people with an iron fist? There are so many social/political structures in place to prevent that, so many people paying attention with the information and the means to fight that, and people constantly in power who care about preserving what we have that this is really not a realistic danger here or in almost all developed 1st world countries. So I don't believe we need a bombastic "freedom or else we'll have tyranny" blunt ideology in these societies, because it's not a danger we are facing. Whereas in that time, the population didn't even have access to the information or have developed enough capacities to even form a reasonable consensus that they agreed with the system or individual practices, so the censorship presented was extraordinarily damaging, which the most educated thinkers like Galileo or Copernicus could realize.
Furthermore, with the sophistication, aren't we capable of applying a finer more precise tool to the question of limiting freedom? Don't we have that luxury? People surely realize that people who continually operate in society can't be free in a sense of having no limits, speech is limited, behavior is limited, etc. because we have to get along with other people. So in our situation, applying the hammer of freedom of speech good, censorship bad is not productive in the least. Everyone undeniably accepts some form of censorship, so the question is where to draw the line, and what I hope is people realize that this is the question. Similar to when someone is a young adult he has to go back and refine his beliefs that carried him through childhood because they were rooted (necessarily because of a lack of capacity for understanding) in a simplistic world view rather than a nuanced one that is now developing.
Therefore our society has emerged into a position where we can evaluate what sorts of things are prescient to allow and what is detrimental to humanity without needing to maintain a rigid ideological stance that gives the proper general shape (although now I believe other challenges we relatively recently have become awakened to, like sustainability, need more of this). We can look at the question of whether we are better off if information about bombs should be readily available (in certain emergencies is this useful? is it needed to "keep our government honest" so to speak?) or obscene/violent art displayed (arts are based on freedom of ideas and in my view freedom in artistic pursuits is necessary, and that arts are a pillar of our society and must be maintained) or speech that incites to criminal behavior published, and if all criminal behavior is equal in this regard. And do each of these outweigh the cost to society.
Preserving in particular the ideals of pedophilia and education into its methods, is this something that we collectively find to be valuable? If we don't find it valuable collectively, for what reason is it so important that we allow every kind of ideal to be freely published despite the harm it can cause? Do we find it valuable enough or this reason compelling enough to offset the cost that some individuals might move from thought to action because its legitimized in a book or methods are taught, and that children are put in more danger because of that? I believe we can tackle these questions where we are at in the development of our society rather than fall back on "freedom or else" when clearly we don't even believe this based on what we have in place: it's illegal to publish ideas on assassinating the president, it's illegal to tell someone what to do in order to commit suicide, it's illegal to incite a riot, it's illegal to yell "fire" in crowds, it's illegal to commit slander or libel, etc..
Freedom is clearly a gray scale in a nuanced view and we have to be open to move the lines around and adjust them from archaic positions whose justifications have passed.
 
|
I question the core of your position, or rather I disagree with it. Society has not emerged into a position where it can evaluate and determine what is detrimental to humanity, as the very notion itself presupposes objectivity on the matter. In fact the reverse is true (or not true, but then thats the point) such a notion is subjective, there is no means by which we can say, with assurity "This is right, This is wrong", and freedom of speech exists, in part, to guard ourselves against such people who would try to do so.
|
It is an interesting thought and a variety of one I hold myself for several years now.
Your text has some flaws which I do not want to go into detail about, because people are likely to take them the wrong way and take them out of context.
Nevertheless I too see the problems in such unsophisticated approach like you described and believe that we can do better than "freedom or else", but I also think that people are too emotional and therefor too lazy to spend the time, which is necessary for understanding it, thinking and that that is the reason why it has fallen and will continue to fall on deaf ears and even be faced with aggressive opposition.
I also find it interesting that you found it necessary to come up with the long introduction instead of directly making your point and it looks like that is because you know of the intellectual laziness I just described, which makes people unable to conceive your point otherwise.
TLDR: I'm glad to have read it.
edit: I also disagree with XeliN on the matter of our capability to arrive at conclusions whose application yields a useful and positive outcome for the vast majority of people.
|
I almost want to simply write "why" and engage on a long and tortuous deduction towards nihilism, but that inescapability is quite depressing, so instead I'll try to outline my point more clearly so you don't state you disagree with me for something I have not argued for.
I am arguing that getting rid of freedom of speech on the grounds that we have arrived at a position whereby we can work out, and agree as a whole, on what is dertrimental to society and what is not, is false.
I disagree with this as it implies objectivity on the matter, although even if it wasn't meant to imply that, the fact is society is in fact divided completely on the matter of what is detrimental and what is not. whether it be religious doctrine or political ideologies, or simply "intuition" there is no measure by which we can, as a whole agree upon what is to the detriment of humanity and what not, or at least no measure that ought be given such preference as to give it the right to infringe on peoples freedom of speech and expression.
|
On November 11 2010 15:34 XeliN wrote:
I question the core of your position, or rather I disagree with it. Society has not emerged into a position where it can evaluate and determine what is detrimental to humanity, as the very notion itself presupposes objectivity on the matter. In fact the reverse is true (or not true, but then thats the point) such a notion is subjective, there is no means by which we can say, with assurity "This is right, This is wrong", and freedom of speech exists, in part, to guard ourselves against such people who would try to do so.
But even if we don't know for a fact that something is detrimental, we absorb and exchange enough information and are collectively aware enough to see what it is we either do or don't know and can roughly with uncertainty estimate its effects and what's possibly valuable about it. We know that in our decision to censor something that we may be losing something form of pleasure or some form of understanding or knowledge that could come out of open development or exchange of ideas on pedophilia and its methods, and can give some estimate to the chances of that and the value it can bring us and weigh it against the cost in terms of increased danger.
Your question of objectivity is present in everything, I don't understand how in your view we can justifiably put someone in jail for murder because we can't objectively see whether it's right or whether the murder even had some value. We can't be objective, so we try to do the best we can in subjectivity about ourselves, it's necessary and I don't understand why it should be acceptable in one arena (justice system for example, laws in general but there are many others) and unacceptable in others.
If its because this is information/discussion and we need that to be able build on and make better subjective judgments, the question of the proper arena for discussion I believe still makes it an issue. Aren't there ways for developing ideas related to the topic of pedophilia, for example, that are both less dangerous (I don't believe the danger is really a challengable point, as if you buy into the subjective system of making laws we have, we have established in the same way that its damaging to children to have an experience like this and the intent of the book in question is clearly encouraging it) and not going to lead to tons of irrational shouting by all parties involved.
On November 11 2010 15:58 XeliN wrote:
I am arguing that getting rid of freedom of speech on the grounds that we have arrived at a position whereby we can work out, and agree as a whole, on what is dertrimental to society and what is not, is false.
But we don't have freedom of speech as any sort of absolute. Looking at our laws, it's clear that its a gray scale, and we decide where to draw the line as being too detrimental (like the some of the illegalities near the end). So adjusting that is not abandoning freedom of speech, it's just saying that that alone is not a valid guiding principle for us.
|
For me it is acceptable in law because law protects us against peoples actions, to apply this acceptability to the realm of ideas, literature or beliefs is too far, if you consider ideas, literature, beliefs, speeches, views, impressions, art, thoughts, attractions as just as worthy of censorship in the same way the legal system censors peoples actions then certainly you are right (in so far as anyone can be) I however do not think they are.
|
Anyway XeliN I believe we are at an impasse and both have stated our ideas down to some sort of fundamental disagreement on expressed ideas vs. actions.
|
To me there seems two grounds by which you can justify the position.
1. Thoughts, beliefs, ideas, literature etc. are sometimes wrong and as such should sometimes be censored (I hope this is not your positon)
2. Thoughts, ideas, .... etc. are not wrong but they can encourage actions which we accept as wrong and as such censorship of the ideas, thoughts (in so far as we can) literature etc. is acceptable as it protects against leading to wrong actions.
The latter is a more stable position but to me flawed as well, because once you allow this you leave option the ability to censor anything. And indeed there are countless examples where the throwing away of free speech and expression has led to censorship and control and oppression of us as beings by those who would dictate what is "good" for us.
|
Oh I don't think we are at an impasse xD I am not simply dismissing what your saying as false on the grounds that "I don't believe it" more trying to outline the reasoning behind why I would argue so.
Unless you have reached a point wherby you can say only "I disagree" in which case I guess so, but such a luxury is beneath you!
|
I'm no scholar on the subject but
"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."
I don't really think that "congress shall make no law" is "gray scale"...
Furthermore I disagree about the analysis that since objectivity is unattainable that it isn't the goal, and while great consensus can be seen on the obvious extremes, I was under the impression that as informed and bias consumers we control the market. If you, for example, don't like Amazon selling the book, or the author being published, you're welcome to speak out and boycott. If real consensus or progress towards it is the will of the people it can be attained.
I suppose I'm no economist but I still feel that the market should drive change in censorship and social norms. It's easy to see the extremes with things like pedophilia, but what about abortion, gay marriage, drugs, prositution, ect... Maybe I'm mistaken but I feel that the philosophical differences in the debates on these subjects is too great for real consensus like you're talking about. Factor in party politics and corruption. If anything I'm curious why Amazon would carry such a product. Or maybe what FBI list you get put on when you buy the book? ROFL... Off topic perhaps ^^
So unless I'm misunderstanding (or articulating poorly), I suppose I wholly disagree :D
|
On November 11 2010 16:21 XeliN wrote:
To me there seems two grounds by which you can justify the position.
1. Thoughts, beliefs, ideas, literature etc. are sometimes wrong and as such should sometimes be censored (I hope this is not your positon)
2. Thoughts, ideas, .... etc. are not wrong but they can encourage actions which we accept as wrong and as such censorship of the ideas, thoughts (in so far as we can) literature etc. is acceptable as it protects against leading to wrong actions.
The latter is a more stable position but to me flawed as well, because once you allow this you leave option the ability to censor anything. And indeed there are countless examples where the throwing away of free speech and expression has led to censorship and control and oppression of us as beings by those who would dictate what is "good" for us.
Well as long as we evaluate there's stable and open communication and relatively responsive people in power as we generally demonstrate in the modern developed world and with the internet and such (and our own open communication verifies this itself) the oppression would almost surely be chased away and denounced (unless you think we are currently oppressed, then its a different issue). That's my opinion of our current social situation although I can see how it's open to disagreement. I just think we've reached some sort of tipping point that we aren't going to get closed off from information and the exchange of ideas of many thoughtful people and the ability to make decisions based on that without some major catastrophe (and in that case the rule of law itself would come into question so censorship is sort of a moot point).
And we can apply our collective minds to judge how much of something is literature (expressing and exploring an idea) and how much is inciting action or an explanation of action (it's usually pretty clear). And thus have some measure of judgment on how much it should be linked to the theoretical ideas and how much it should be linked to action. Also as an aside in this example, the claim that something can be done safely is a moral hazard which is very well documented in behavior, and itself incites action (whether that was the purpose or not).
Moral Hazard if unfamiliar is the idea that feeling safer doing something encourages it, ie. driving more recklessly because you are insured/riding more recklessly because you are wearing a helmet, etc..
|
On November 11 2010 16:30 Motiva wrote:
"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."
I don't really think that "congress shall make no law" is "gray scale"...
Which again was written in the 1700's, a time that necessitated this sort of rigid ideology, and which over time has been interpreted to be not absolute based on the realities we face, and why in modern times there are many laws which do indeed abridge absolutely free speech, ie. inciting a riot, and a modern challenge is making these interpretations.
|
freedom of speech must result in the ability to say whatever i want. any limitation on that and it's no longer freedom. it's really tempting to say that people shouldn't have the freedom to pour religious or racial hate, but that contradicts the concept of freedom in the first place.
the virtues of 'freedom' in a millsian way have already been analysed, but the most important thing to note here is that people should and must be allowed to say otherwise 'hateful things'. it's not fair to impose the judgements of the masses on individuals and assume that the masses automatically know what is right, because in any democratic society, individuals MUST have the ability to express themselves, regardless of content or how hateful their opinion is. they have this right.
summarised from 'a new map of censorship' by r. dworkin, don't kill me
|
I can see the merit behind your position, but the slippery slope argument is what makes me uneasy. If you start down the road of censorship, even if it's only to censor things which we can all collectively deem unworthy of free speech protection, you never know where that road is going to lead you in the end.
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist..."
|
The essence of free speech is that there is no limit. Limits are always arbitrary. Arbitrary limits will always discriminate. Yes, moral values are arbitrary.
What standard are you applying? Do you believe that if an absolute majority of a community wants to ban something, it should be banned? Two thirds majority? 90%? 99%? Remember that the banning of anything at all is at the detriment of some members of the community.
The lines of the law should always drawn at where it causes harm to others. And being offended cannot be considered a harm. I don't see why you should be entitled to deprive someone else's freedoms based on your own moral judgement. It's the same line of reasoning used by those in support of banning gay marriage, or even gay public affection. It's the line of thinking that caused people to be stoned for uttering the word "Jehovah".
To add to that, I also refuse to support an argument of harm based on remoteness. That being the concept of one action leading to another action that could be harmful, thus the first action being one that indirectly causes harm. Do disallow angry music, because it incites more anger, leading to possible violence? Do we disallow the practice of Islam, because practitioners may become extremists? Do we disallow speaking loudly because it incites raw emotion, which is the basis of any action intended to harm?
Evelyn Hall said of Voltaire's principles: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Also, old philosophies are not irrelevant. That something is old is not an argument to its validity.
|
On November 11 2010 16:07 XeliN wrote:
For me it is acceptable in law because law protects us against peoples actions, to apply this acceptability to the realm of ideas, literature or beliefs is too far, if you consider ideas, literature, beliefs, speeches, views, impressions, art, thoughts, attractions as just as worthy of censorship in the same way the legal system censors peoples actions then certainly you are right (in so far as anyone can be) I however do not think they are.
OK, I had written a whole bunch of stuff but in the end decided to just focus on the issue at hand instead of a drawn-out philosophical discussion.
I will make it short: publishing a book endorsing pedophilia (and that is what this book does judging by the samples given) is a harmful action. Writing that book and keeping it with you is okay, no one can censor thoughts, nor should anyone be able to. But making that book available to others is spreading this idea and at the very instant interaction with another being is involved possible consequences must be considered.
I have argued against freedom of expression in a similar fashion before, namely because freedom of expression also entails a freedom to spread misinformation and the circulation of misinformation undermines your freedom of choice, because every choice you make rests on the assumption that the underlying information is true.
Freedom to express things to yourself should be unlimited, but unlimited freedom of expression without that distinction is naive, irresponsible and harmful.
|
By what criteria then do you deem things "misinformation"?
Should people who publish creationist books about the age of the universe and the way man evolved (or didn't) not be allowed to publish their work because they are misinforming?
On November 11 2010 17:28 enzym wrote:
no one can censor thoughts, nor should anyone be able to. But making that book available to others is spreading this idea and at the very instant interaction with another being is involved possible consequences must be considered.
And on this same basis, if sharing of idea's must be possibly censored based on possible consequences, then why do you simultaneously argue that no one should, if possible, be allowed to censor thoughts.
Do thoughts and ideas not also carry with them possible consequences? and if the possible consequences of sharing ideas are dangerous enough to censor it so such sharing is not possible, then also ought we not if possible censor thoughts and ideas themselves as they also do.
|
On November 11 2010 17:14 raviy wrote:
The essence of free speech is that there is no limit. Limits are always arbitrary. Arbitrary limits will always discriminate. Yes, moral values are arbitrary.
What standard are you applying? Do you believe that if an absolute majority of a community wants to ban something, it should be banned? Two thirds majority? 90%? 99%? Remember that the banning of anything at all is at the detriment of some members of the community.
The lines of the law should always drawn at where it causes harm to others. And being offended cannot be considered a harm. I don't see why you should be entitled to deprive someone else's freedoms based on your own moral judgement. It's the same line of reasoning used by those in support of banning gay marriage, or even gay public affection. It's the line of thinking that caused people to be stoned for uttering the word "Jehovah".
To add to that, I also refuse to support an argument of harm based on remoteness. That being the concept of one action leading to another action that could be harmful, thus the first action being one that indirectly causes harm. Do disallow angry music, because it incites more anger, leading to possible violence? Do we disallow the practice of Islam, because practitioners may become extremists? Do we disallow speaking loudly because it incites raw emotion, which is the basis of any action intended to harm?
Evelyn Hall said of Voltaire's principles: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Also, old philosophies are not irrelevant. That something is old is not an argument to its validity.
Bravo. Either all speech is free, or no speech is free. This is the line between democracy and mob rule.
|
On November 11 2010 17:39 XeliN wrote:
By what criteria then do you deem things "misinformation"?
Should people who publish creationist books about the age of the universe and the way man evolved (or didn't) not be allowed to publish their work because they are misinforming? Yes, exactly, and I don't think that a serious case in favour of the spread of such misinformation can be made.
Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 17:28 enzym wrote:
no one can censor thoughts, nor should anyone be able to. But making that book available to others is spreading this idea and at the very instant interaction with another being is involved possible consequences must be considered.
And on this same basis, if sharing of idea's must be possibly censored based on possible consequences, then why do you simultaneously argue that no one should, if possible, be allowed to censor thoughts. Do thoughts and ideas not also carry with them possible consequences? and if the possible consequences of sharing ideas are dangerous enough to censor it so such sharing is not possible, then also ought we not if possible censor thoughts and ideas themselves as they also do.
But consistency and coherence are values I try to adhere to and freedom is a consequence of them. The reason why I'm in favour of censoring the spread of ideas but not the ideas themselves is because that is exactly where I can draw the line between their freedom and the freedom of everybody else.
To be honest I'd like to be able to censor thoughts, just as I'd like to be able to kill a number of people, but at the same time acknowledge that I can't do that without abandoning some principles.
|
On November 11 2010 17:14 raviy wrote:
The essence of free speech is that there is no limit. Limits are always arbitrary. Arbitrary limits will always discriminate. Yes, moral values are arbitrary.
What standard are you applying? Do you believe that if an absolute majority of a community wants to ban something, it should be banned? Two thirds majority? 90%? 99%? Remember that the banning of anything at all is at the detriment of some members of the community.
The lines of the law should always drawn at where it causes harm to others. And being offended cannot be considered a harm. I don't see why you should be entitled to deprive someone else's freedoms based on your own moral judgement. It's the same line of reasoning used by those in support of banning gay marriage, or even gay public affection. It's the line of thinking that caused people to be stoned for uttering the word "Jehovah".
To add to that, I also refuse to support an argument of harm based on remoteness. That being the concept of one action leading to another action that could be harmful, thus the first action being one that indirectly causes harm. Do disallow angry music, because it incites more anger, leading to possible violence? Do we disallow the practice of Islam, because practitioners may become extremists? Do we disallow speaking loudly because it incites raw emotion, which is the basis of any action intended to harm?
Evelyn Hall said of Voltaire's principles: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Also, old philosophies are not irrelevant. That something is old is not an argument to its validity.
I don't propose just banning things based on people wanting them banned, it's based on outgrowths of aspects of our system of law, which we accept and submit to (in general).
The action leading to another harmful action, I don't see why considering that should be disregarded. In some cases it certainly happens, and it takes more abstract and advanced thought to recognize, but I don't see anything that suggests we shouldn't take it into consideration. Isn't it why we try to reduce crime and improve standards of living in impoverished areas by working on improving education there rather than solely devoting more police? We are humans capable of abstract thought and seeing links like that and not primitive animals, so why would we govern ourselves like we only see immediate direct stimuli like a primitive animal?
I don't think any of those you mention should be disallowed because the cost of disallowing them impinges on so many things like the foundation of arts, the foundations of personal philosophy and religious practice, etc. but disallowing particular books from being sold in general public places because they have cost to society in inciting law-breaking and direct harm to others in society but don't offer anything of value identified by any reliable source is completely different. I'm asking: isn't our society advanced enough that we can make this distinction?
Also I never said old = irrelevant. What I'm saying is some things are borne out of necessity for their time or expressed in a certain way due to that necessity and then the situation changes and they are no longer as essential or no longer deal properly with complications that arise. I can point to many old philosophers and philosophies that are essential to modern thinking. Things change and we have to recognize what still applies and what needs tweaked or explored more closely. Everyone seems resistant to even consider this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
