Answers to 12 Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments: Featuring That XKCD Cartoon Everyone Likes to Quote! - Areo

submitted by Chipit from areomagazine.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Sendnoodles 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Did you know the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was used to put socialists in prison? For protesting WWI?

Not entirely. Someone misused it in the past. That's totally fucked up I agree, but if it's used correctly according to it's actual intent, then it makes a lot of sense.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You read where the judge totally went back on it once he realized what he did, right?

And shouting fire in a crowded theater means saying something false.

[–]Sendnoodles 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I hadn't read their explanation at the time of my comment, I went back and read it now. I did think about it more but my feelings are unchanged. I agree with it in principle. In the literal interpretation, I don't think shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should qualify as protected speech. There is room for abuse though and I am certainly against to it being used falsely to silence opposition or people simply saying things you don't like.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mill's Trident

Mill recognizes that there are only three possibilities in any given argument:

  1. You are wrong, in which case freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.

  2. You are partially correct, in which case you need free speech and contrary viewpoints to help you get a more precise understanding of what the truth really is.

  3. You are 100% correct, in the unlikely event that you are 100% correct, you still need people to argue with you, to try to contradict you, and to try to prove you wrong. Why? Because if you never have to defend your points of view, there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them, and that you hold them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition. It’s only through arguing with contrary viewpoints that you come to understand why what you believe is true.

Throughout history, powerful people have elevated their own prejudices and superstitions to the third category, protecting them for a time by censoring contrary viewpoints. And once that censorship failed, as nearly all censorship eventually does, those ideas were often exposed as wrong.

Don't be on the side of the powerful. Be on our side. Free speech is the best weapon of the little guy.