To focus on the free speech aspect of this problem, let's take an example that isn't particularly contentious, and doesn't have extraneous outside factors. 'Should I be allowed to say that the sun goes around the Earth?' I find myself thinking that while I believe people should be allowed the freedom to express a factually incorrect belief such as the one in this example, allowing such freedom comes with the negative consequence of facilitating the spread of misinformation, which I'm very opposed to.
Anyone else want to have an opinion on this apparent paradox? Is my premise incorrect? Does one of these considerations outweigh the other? I honestly don't know which side to advocate here; I'm basically for freedom of speech but against its consequences and not sure what to do about it.
see, here's the thing. i don't like the idea that unilaterally people can be denied a platform. i definitely think the best way to drown out stupid speech is to let people talk about it and eventually they will be proven wrong. i think other people's opinions are worth listening to. but...
So a major point of tension is between the 'marketplace of ideas' leaving all speech to be filtered and sorted on its merits by a democratic society, versus the reality that this freedom allows some false ideas to be introduced into the marketplace, many of which are dangerous and yet will sell because they are appealing.The problem with the 'market place of ideas' is that it is vulnerable to the spread of delusional-characteristic false beliefs. This is because in a capitalist society individuals' behaviors are best explained according to their need to acquire capital. Milo Yiannapoulos uses tactics that are very profitable for him because of all the controversy generating attention. This includes what beliefs they are hold/available for them to hold and they pass much of their way of thinking, often, onto the next generation. They actually pass on literally thousands of false beliefs, but almost of none of them do any harm. Except some, such as white supremacy, chauvinism, and fear of difference, are especially toxic because they are so profitable. Systems predicated on these beliefs are actually the main sources of profit historically, aside from animal domestication and the destruction of the ecology of the earth.
So what happens when the idea needed to save society from collapsing isn't profitable? Hint: this is the reality we are facing if you believe in climate change.
Some thoughts on this tension:
1. I don't think most free-speech advocates would argue for no restrictions on speech whatsoever - attacking free speech absolutism is something of a straw man. To run with the 'marketplace' analogy, even free markets in capitalist societies are subject to consumer protection laws. You can't lie about a product you're selling, and if you are discovered doing so, you'll be punished and taken off the market. I think free-speech advocates would agree that imminent and demonstrable harm - and harm not in the form of mere offence but in the form of violence or incitement to it - is an instant disqualification from free speech protection. But would it disqualify anti-vaxxers or seven-day creationists? Probably not the former - because any potential harm is easy to remedy with clear presentation and ready availability of more accurate facts - and surely not the latter - because I think the causal and tangible harm in that scenario is shaky at best.
2. Respectfully, I think the problem with Myzozoa's resolution of this tension is that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. Surely there are several way-stations along the way to protecting against dangerous ideas in the marketplace before we need to resort to banning the expression of those ideas altogether? The role of free media in assisting the marketplace to identify the dangerous ideas has been mentioned above and is absolutely essential.
I think the #lastnightinsweden incident was a great example of this. This week Trump all but said that there was a terrorist attack in Sweden the previous night. If all I had done was listen to his address, I could believe that. It was said by the POTUS, after all, someone whom you could reasonably trust to have good information on that kind of thing. But because I am an active participant in democracy - no great feat, no genius involved - I also accessed some good journalism from our national public news website, which succinctly stepped through the statements from Swedish officials that made it clear that Trump was wrong. It was a matter of minutes. Because I have access to good journalism (and in this instance my government was good enough to fund it), no harm was done. If anything I am better informed on the terrorist threat levels in Sweden than I was before Trump opened his mouth. Again I didn't do anything noteworthy or difficult or strenuous, I just took advantage of reliable resources at my disposal. And at no point did I even come close to needing anyone to shield me from Trump's words as the only possible way to protect me from the harm of being misled.
tl;dr Efforts to combat dangerous speech in a marketplace of ideas shouldn't jump straight to censorship - there are more moderate measures that will effectively expose dangerous speech for what it is, and the most important of these is the promotion and protection of free media.