I too have ambiguous thoughts about “free speech”. It was once a no-brainer for me based on liberal ideology, ethics, philosophy and other intellectual spheres. I also believed that most educated humans were serious critical thinkers and not influenced by political stunts. But seeing the consequences in the real world has made me questio…
I too have ambiguous thoughts about “free speech”. It was once a no-brainer for me based on liberal ideology, ethics, philosophy and other intellectual spheres. I also believed that most educated humans were serious critical thinkers and not influenced by political stunts. But seeing the consequences in the real world has made me question everything. To my sincere chagrin, because I don’t want to be a fascist, an authoritarian, or controller. And I’m really struggling with this.
We’re no longer dealing with (metaphorical) town-criers handing out badly printed political pamphlets. We’re dealing with well-organized, well-funded disrupters who are 100% focused on moving from fringe to mainstream, with serious political agendas. I’ve seen nasty superstitious and conspiracy theory social media broadcasting that is absolutely dazzling, very persuasive. Less well-financed players like researchers, self-effacing scientists and thoughtful analysts are not getting their message out there because they can’t afford publicists, videographers or whatever else the well-funded can do. Plus sadly many of them don’t have the exciting, charismatic personalities necessary to capture public attention. Yes, yes I understand the big question: who’s to decide what is acceptable to be included in the free speech forum? Naturally I don’t have an answer any more than anyone else. Are there some people we can all agree aren’t worth giving a public platform?
I too have ambiguous thoughts about “free speech”. It was once a no-brainer for me based on liberal ideology, ethics, philosophy and other intellectual spheres. I also believed that most educated humans were serious critical thinkers and not influenced by political stunts. But seeing the consequences in the real world has made me question everything. To my sincere chagrin, because I don’t want to be a fascist, an authoritarian, or controller. And I’m really struggling with this.
We’re no longer dealing with (metaphorical) town-criers handing out badly printed political pamphlets. We’re dealing with well-organized, well-funded disrupters who are 100% focused on moving from fringe to mainstream, with serious political agendas. I’ve seen nasty superstitious and conspiracy theory social media broadcasting that is absolutely dazzling, very persuasive. Less well-financed players like researchers, self-effacing scientists and thoughtful analysts are not getting their message out there because they can’t afford publicists, videographers or whatever else the well-funded can do. Plus sadly many of them don’t have the exciting, charismatic personalities necessary to capture public attention. Yes, yes I understand the big question: who’s to decide what is acceptable to be included in the free speech forum? Naturally I don’t have an answer any more than anyone else. Are there some people we can all agree aren’t worth giving a public platform?