The answer to dangerous lies is the truth, not censorship. We have a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas die and good ideas spread. Unfortunately, I see a trend towards restricting free speech, which will only harm the country in the long term.
If that were true, neither QAnon nor "Stop the Steal" would have gone anywhere. Instead, they spread like wildfire to the point where their adherents literally attacked the democratic process.
The marketplace of ideas only works that way when its participants are rational actors with good judgement, and it's becoming increasingly clear that is not actually the case.
To all those bandying about "free speech" without ever tackling any of the nuances of reality, I'd love to hear -- if push came to shove, would you have argued platforms should be giving megaphones to even Hitler? If not, you acknowledge there's a line, so let's define it.
In contrast the US and the UK, with their free speech absolutism (British hate speech laws weren't put into place until recently), were one of the few major democracies without fascist parties winning any major elections.
You also dodge the central question - Do you believe Hitler had a protected right to free speech worth defending?
I may or may not read your response because I don't believe you're arguing in good faith though.
Those gatekeeping functions were lessened after the violent Democratic national convention of '68 (where there was a clash between pro-war and anti-war factions) and primaries became a thing that actually mattered (in 68 Humphrey was selected by backroom insiders who did not participate in a single primary in that cycle, leading to public outcry). However, the gatekeeping effects persisted because of the control the parties still had over advertising channels and the media; that control fell apart post-2000, which setup the conditions that enabled a populist like Donald Trump to actually be elected to the presidency.
So it's not free speech that kept fascists out of power in the U.S., it's institutional gatekeeping (in the 30's and 40's).
This point does not pass the smell test. Since 1968 the United States has become a vastly more tolerant, liberal, open and free society than prior to that point. You'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to say that the US is more prone to fascism than it was 50 years ago.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323...
https://time.com/4516276/cable-street-battle-london-east-end...
(the giant murals of George Washington and the talk about "job-stealing refugees" is particularly apropos given the current atmosphere of the Trumpist faction)
It is obviously correct that once social norms have reached the breaking point that hate speech laws can become a cudgel used to further hate speech. The goal is to keep it from reaching that point.
It is in fact probably correct to say that in either approach once the social norms have reached the breaking point, that either positive or negative freedoms can be weaponized. Freedom of speech can be used to rally a lynch mob, and hate speech laws can be used to oppress a minority, once you have reached the point where a hateful party has widespread social acceptance and control of a sufficient number of the political levers of power.
In general though it is also not correct to say that the US has complete free-speech absolutism. Actually planning to lynch someone, for example, is not protected free speech. The argument for further restrictions is that those lines may not be correctly drawn by our forefathers - why should actually planning to lynch Tom Brown be illegal, but the KKK rallying to lynch somebody be legal and protected, as long as they don't name a specific name in advance? Why should arguing that people should be lynched in general without the specific intention to do so today be protected? There are many places we could concievably draw the line without really impacting anyone's actual freedoms to do anything other than incite hatred and ultimately inciting violence and death.
You're leaving out the implicit assumption you're making, that the "authorities" in charge of the marketplace are rational actors. You better hope to hell, that they are.
Because when some marketplace participants fail, they fail gracefully. When centralized authorities fail, they fail spectacularly and disastrously. I can virtually guarantee you that Qanon will be a footnote in ten years time. In contrast how would you like to live in Iran, China, Turkey, or any other regime where lunatics have taken over in the name of "protecting the people from dangerous ideas"?
All those people clamoring for authorities to clamp down on irrational Trumpist extremists, have forgotten that Trump and his cronies were just recently in charge of all three branches of the government as well as a supermajority of state governments.
This is how the political cycle always goes. All anybody sees is a sensible, incoming administration with likeminded views. And I actually agree. Biden's a decent man, and I honestly can't see him abusing even very broad powers. But what happens after? But there's no putting this genie back in the bottle. Do you trust President Donald Trump Jr. or President Tucker Carlson or President Josh Hawley with that power?
This isn't even hypothetical. Most people here are too young to remember the post-9/11 hysteria. But I can virtually guarantee you that had the current crop of anti-speech activists managed to put their would-be "anti-extremist" laws in place, that opposition to the War on Terror would have been de facto illegal.
Dealing with some stupid conspiracy theories and LARPer shamans, who have as much chance of overthrowing the American government as my toddler, are a small price to pay for fault-tolerance in liberal democracy.
Just the point that the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't function very well when those in it are not acting in good faith. Qanon may be a footnote in ten years. The Tea Party is a footnote from the last decade. The Klan has gone down to footnote several times and been revived each time. (Although the current incarnation has gotten rid of the name and the outfits. Yay, progress!) I remember the 9/11 hysteria, and I remember checking on my Moslem friends about the free speech they were receiving. Anyway, and yet, here we are.
Blind faith in the marketplace of ideas doesn't work any better than blind faith in the invisible hand of economics.
The question is whether the marketplace of ideas works better than other actual systems or cultures found in the real-world. Here's what I do know, the marketplace of ideas was conceived 300 years ago in the Enlightenment. Since then, the amount of human liberty, tolerance, peace, and prosperity has exploded. The societies that adopted the principles of the Enlightenment first experienced the earliest and largest gains along these dimensions. The societies today that most adhere to Enlightenment principles and the marketplace of ideas are by far the freest and most prosperous. Over any reasonable span of time, tolerance, freedom and peace continue to monotonically improve. Especially for the most marginalized groups. Particularly in the most liberal societies.
In what universe could anyone possibly lock at this track record of success and not conclude that the Enlightenment and its principle of the marketplace of ideas has been a resounding success. Arguably the most resounding success in all of human history. Honestly, what possible system, real or imagined, do you believe could have produced better results?
I love free speech. I think it's one of the most important things in society. But the whole "kill lies with more speech" meme needs to die because there's simply no evidence for it.
We should have free speech for its own sake, and recognize and mitigate its harmful effects as much as possible. If we don't, society will turn against free speech entirely and everyone will be much worse off.
I couldn't agree more. They also seem to have pretty extreme tunnel vision, and even seem to discard other First Amendment rights, like freedom of association and freedom of the press. Freedom of speech also means freedom to not speak, likewise freedom of association means freedom to not associate and freedom of the press means freedom not to publish. These are rights that aren't always in harmony, and need to be balanced if they're all to mean anything at all.
I think some of the zealotry is caused by something like "knowing just enough to be dangerous." It's easy to fall into zealotry if you only really know oversimple versions of one or two things. However, I think at least some of it is bad-faith argumentation, where grand invocations of "freedom of speech" are just rhetorical cover for shitty opinions they'd like to spread unhindered.
That is the ideal. The actual marketplace seems to operate in the opposite fashion.
The converse of that is "If the idea persists, it's good". I'm having a hard time seeing the evidence for that as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
(where did "trickle down" come from anyway? Well, if you feed the horse enough oats, there will be some left for the sparrows. That's what's "trickling down".)
Perhaps it should work that way, but in a US context, I think this is demonstrably false. Many people participating in the marketplace of ideas hold diametrically opposing ideas and posit contradictory facts. There is no winnowing of falsehood from truth.
Doubt. This was certainly the intention but it's very plain that the market of public discourse doesn't work nearly as well as scientific peer review, which is itself somewhat flawed.
It's an old truism that 'a lie can get halfway round the world before the truth has got its shoes on.' It has also been rigorously documented: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 For that matter, phrases like 'the big lie' reflect a wide social awareness that lying has historically been an effective political strategy.
Besides the fact that the marketplace of ideas demonstrably doesn't privilege truth in the short term, why would you expect it to? A marketplace is easily dominated by whoever can invest heavily in promotional tools. Furthermore, many people in the market demand entertainment or validation rather than truth, so there's abundant money to be made out of selling pleasant-sounding bullshit.
Given that, there's clearly an amount of acceptable censorship that is higher than 0.
Why do we assume this is true? Billions of people get scammed in the world yearly. Yes. Billions.
Mass hysteria[1] is a thing, and sure in the long term an idea __may__ die out (again, there's no real evidence of this). The damage done until it does die out can lead to a rise in cult of personality like how Hitler came into power and became so popular in Germany.
There isn't some natural filter of hate and __bad__ ideas in humans. People are sheep and will put their weight behind anyone who resonates with them. Not necessarily "good" ideas.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases