Become an academy of ideas supporting member and access over 92 videos exclusive to members. Sign up for 6 dollars a month or 49 dollars a year by visiting academy of ideas dot com slash members. This channel is made possible by the support of our members. In those w countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything else's his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by sub doing the f of speech.
Freedom of speech was once 1 of the west's most cherished rights. But in the modern day, governments are attempting to strip us of this right. In almost all western nations, legislation is being introduced to t our ability to speak freely. Politicians and bureau justify this anti free speech stance in the name of the greater good.
They claim that with more control over what people say, fewer people will be let us stray by misinformation and misinformation and fewer people will be harmed by the criticism and insults of hate speech. In this video, we make the case that censoring and criminal the expression of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech is an existential threat to a free and prosperous society. To suppress free speech is a double wrong, wrote the American philosopher, Frederick Douglass.
It violates the right of the hero as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. In the west of there have long been limits on what can and cannot be said. Property rights create 1 such limit. A property owner can assert the authority of my house my rules and expel any individual from his or her premises who says something the property owner wishes not to hear.
The principles of common law, which are foundational to many western legal systems also recognize recognized speech which threatens the person or property of another cons conspired toward the committing of a crime or incite others to violence as requiring legal sanction. Laws against a defamation and false advertising place additional limits on speech. The purpose of this video is not to argue against the value of these basic limits on our speech.
Rather our concern is solely with the dangers that arise if government sensor and criminal what they consider to be misinformation, misinformation and hate speech. The opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Wrote to John Stewart mill, Those who desire to suppress it, of course, deny its truth, but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind. And exclude every other person from the means of judging.
Disinformation is typically defined as false or inaccurate information that is spread with the intent to deceive. While misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information that is spread without the intent to deceive. To accuse someone of spreading false ideas, a judgment must be made as to what is true. Government censorship of misinformation and misinformation. Therefore, requires the creation of a regulatory body tasked with a distinguishing between truth and deception.
Few people are naive enough to believe that politicians and bureau are mentally equipped to be the ultimate ar of truth. But many believe that governments can rely on the opinion of experts to determine if something is misinformation or disinformation. There are several reasons why experts are ill suited to play this role. Firstly, there are relatively few ideas which all experts agree on.
Politicians, therefore can influence what will be classified as misinformation or disinformation through the selection of the experts authorized to distinguish between truth and error. Secondly, experts like all of us are corrupt by money and power, If granted the authority to determine truth for a society, it is very likely that most experts will fall prey to the same corrupting influences that turn politicians into forces of social destruction.
But even if an expert motives remain pure, They are still not suited to play the role of ultimate ar of truth. For experts tend to be hyper specialized in a specific field of study, which creates a my in their vision. They may have a strong grasp on the current knowledge base of their domain, and they may be the best person to ask what is considered a true right now, but it does not follow that the expert will always be a att to the truth especially if the truth is new and groundbreaking.
Years of specializing on a single field of study often leaves the experts entrenched in their views and unwilling to consider competing points of view. For this reason, it is often the outsider who discovers the truths that revolutionize our understanding of the world, and the outsider is the very individual who risks censorship by the so called expert. Or as Ian Mig miguel writes? There is a prejudice against outsiders who have the advantage of not starting with the same pre.
Herman Von Helm holds crucially important discoveries and physics were dismissed because he was a medical doctor in philosopher by training. Equally, Louis pasteur and Francois Manganese, medical discoveries were dismissed because they were not physicians. There is a tendency for many scientists to take an un critically contempt and at times, frankly, self righteous attitude to whatever might challenge the mainstream of conventional thinking.
Another reason the expert is ill suited to play the role of the ultimate ar of truth is because truth is not discovered by decree. Truths are converged upon through a spontaneous and free flowing competition of ideas. And in this process, false ideas play a crucial role. False ideas are the contrast through which truth emerges. Or as Frank Fur writes in his book on tolerance, truth emerges through the process of debate among competing views and opinions.
From this perspective, even views that are deemed to be false can serve the positive end of forcing others to develop and clarify their opinions. When a government bureaucracy and its appointed experts become the ar of truth, this stunt the intellectual development of mankind. It hinder our ability to challenge the ideas of the status quo and t the creative dynamic by which we test refine and discover new truths. The expression of what we believe to be false ideas should not be silenced.
These ideas should be openly debated. For not only do false ideas help us arrive at truth, but sometimes what is thought to be false is later discovered to be true. Or as John Stuart Mil wrote. The peculiar evil of si the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, poster as well as the existing generation. Those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth.
If wrong, they lose what is almost as greater a benefit, the clearer perception and live impression of truth produced by its collision with error. A further danger of permitting governments to censor and criminal the expression of misinformation and dis information is that it creates an infant population. When a government claims that it is necessary to protect people from what do they
consider to be false or dangerous ideas. What they are assert is that the population is too immature to exercise independent judgment. Like children, we are to be told what to believe what is right and wrong and what can and cannot be said. And as the philosopher Ronald d do explains. Government insults its citizens and denies their moral responsibility when it decree that they cannot be trust to hear opinions that might persuade them to dangerous or offensive convictions.
We retain our dignity as individuals, only by insisting that no 1, no official and no majority has the right to withhold opinion from us on the ground that we are not fit to hear and consider it. The greatest danger of censoring and criminal misinformation and misinformation, however, is that it pave the way for totalitarian ism. First as Frederick Douglass wrote, liberty is meaningless where the right other one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.
That of all rights is the dread of tyrant It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. All totalitarian nations of the past have censored speech and only permitted the expression of ideas that align with the ideology of the ruling party. All other ideas are classified as misinformation or disinformation Creating a regulatory body tasked with determining what is to be considered true is taking a page out of George Or dystopian novel 19 84.
In this novel, the totalitarian government that rules over society operates a ministry of truth. And the bureau who work there are tasked with censoring the arts entertainment news and education industries. Whatever the party holds to be the truth is truth, rights or well, It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the party. When a government has granted the power to determine what is true, it possesses a remarkable power over its citizenry.
Without needing to use overt force, it can engineer a population to act in the ways desired by the ruling class, and it can quell dissent of destructive government policies by classifying it as disinformation. In his book propaganda, the formation of men's
attitudes, the French philosopher Jo wrote that. The point is to make the masses demand of the government what the government has already decided to do in the way a government does this is by creating the lens of ideas through which a population views the world. And as John Stuart Mil wrote. An absolute power of suppressing all opinions would amount if it could be exercised to a des far more perfect than any other which has yet existed.
Whether a government uses its powers of censorship to promote what it thinks is good for society is irrelevant. The mere act of s our ability to make our own determination about what is true and what ideas we allow to shape our lives is a totalitarian act as it rid us of the personal autonomy that is integral to freedom, or as fe writes.
Prop and institutional forms of correct attitudes and behavior that are generated by government advisors and experts is a form of social engineering that is devoted to re educating people. If the term totalitarian is to have any meaning, It is a system where the right to possess and act on private preferences is continually tested by official.
When the dangers of censoring and criminal the spread of misinformation and disinformation are recognized, It becomes clear that if we favor freedom, social prosperity in the moral and intellectual advancement of mankind, we should oppose this form of government censorship. But what about laws against hate speech.
Hate speech, as the author Nadine Str writes can be defined as speech that expresses hateful or discriminatory views about certain groups that historically have been subject to discrimination or about personal characteristics that have been the basis of discrimination. Such as race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. 1 of the primary ways that hate speech laws are justified is by claiming that hate speech constitutes a form of violence.
Just as physical blows cause bodily harm, hateful words inflict emotional and mental heart that can be deeply damaging to the health of 1 psyche. If words can be weapons, then those who psychologically assault others with words should be subject to criminal prosecution. This position, however, amounts to a recon conceptual of language and a fetish of words. Or as Fe explains, At its worst, the idiom of a assault of speech fetish words.
Reinventing them as objects that contain destructive properties in and of themselves. Historically, the fetish federation of words emerged with ancient mist and religious thought. According to numerous creation myths, saying the word could turn it into reality while a spell or a curse could literally destroy lives. In ancient Egypt, it was believed that the spoken word had a transformative impact on the world.
In some religions, the word for God could not be said for fear of unleashing its wrath. These early fantasies of ancient superstition have now been recycled by opponents of free speech in the shape of psychic threats. This fetish of words overlook the fact that there is a categorical difference between an assault with a word and an assault with a physical object. If a man is struck with a fist to the face, categorical He will experience harm, no matter his mental state.
But when it comes to the weapon of words, the degree of harm victim experiences is determined by his or her ecological constitution. Some people can be at the receiving end of brutal insults and yet experience a very little harm, technological while others can be psychologically crushed by the most minor of slight. When assaulted by the so called weapon of words, our mental state is the biggest determinant of the amount of harm we experience.
And as writes, unlike physical harm, our emotional harm is limited only by the imagination, regardless of intent, A gesture or comment can be perceived in a way that causes emotional harm. And this leads to a major problem with hate speech laws. What 1 considers as meeting the threshold of hate speech is completely subjective and by granting the government, the power to make this judgment, The government can use these laws to silence any individual or group they desire. For example,
they can... Claim that criticism of the government psychologically harms politicians. Criticism of immigration levels psychologically harms certain ethnic groups. Criticism of abortion laws psychologically harms women. Criticism of climate change laws psychologically harms the youth. Or criticism of a war, psychologically harms 1 of the groups involved.
If you can't express your biases or your hatred or what others perceive as your buy or hatred, then you've been preemptively gag explains gerard Casey. You are at the mercy of those who get to determine what is and what isn't hate speech, where hate speech is simply whatever those who are given to censorship and have the power to sensor, find hateful, hate Censoring hate speech laws also divides a society.
It creates groups who are protected from criticism by the government and groups who are not. The privileged treatment of the protected groups can increase the an directed toward them and turn them into targets due to what many perceive as unfair treatment. Furthermore, when people are prevented from expressing their hatred words, This can lead to pent up frustrations that manifest in physical violence.
To make matters worse, censoring and criminal hate speech, stunt the psychological development of the members of the protected groups. A key component of maturity is cultivating the capacity to endure criticism without breaking down psychologically. If we demand that a government used the force of the law to protect us from what we consider hate speech we become comp in the weakening of our sense of self.
Instead of cultivating the resilience and power required to respond to or ignore the cruel words of others. We dis ourselves and play the role of the victim. A role that is not conducive to individual flourishing, and as fur writes, There is something child blake about the refusal to deal with fence Learning to live with the troublesome experiences of life, such as being slight overlooked, insulted and hurt is an important feature of adult maturity.
Calling attention to feeling offended is another way of saying, I want your sympathy and you fix it. While every human being requires the empathy of others, Learning to sort out existential problems is an essential feature of moral maturity and taking offense is often a display of imma maturity. Not only do hate speech laws have many negative consequences, but they are also unnecessary as there are more effective ways to inhibit the expression of hate speech.
All functioning societies have used informal social mechanisms, such as norms of politeness in etiquette hate and most importantly social os to effectively minimize hateful rhetoric.
It is a false dichotomy to believe that our options are between allowing governments to criminal hate speech, or allowing it to spread unchecked, or as casey rates, You are not called upon when walking down Oxford street, if you should come across someone weighing 500 pounds to walk up to him and say, My god, you're disgusting fat.
Such matters are controlled by informal social norms, which are more extensive and more effective than we often give them credit for being as indeed, is the case with most of the things that we say and do. Without these moral and social constraints, it would scarce be possible to organize a functioning society, even with the most extensive and minute legal regulations. Permitting governments to sensor hate speech, misinformation and disinformation creates a slippery slope.
For if we as a society come to accept that hateful speech and false or dangerous ideas should be censored and the subject of legal control, Why stop there. Why not restrict or punish thoughts. For the wrong type of thinking is what leads to the expression of hate? Speech into the spread of misinformation and disinformation. If we can identify which individuals are thinking in the wrong way, Perhaps we should re them before they put their dangerous thoughts into words.
And if they resist reed education, perhaps we should imprison them for thought crimes, To prevent a descent into these dystopian conditions where governments police our thoughts and control our words, More of us need to exercise our right to free speech and to os exercise individuals and businesses who are comp in government censorship. If we don't, our future will be bleak. For his Alexander stole warned. Public opinion.
I don't know how soc archaeologists define it, but it seems obvious to me that it can only consist of interacting individual opinions. Freely expressed and independent of government or party opinion. So long as there is no independent public opinion in our country, There is no guarantee that the extermination of millions and millions for no good reason will not happen again, that it will not begin any night. Perhaps this very night.
Our goal at Academy of ideas is to spread ideas that can help empower us as individuals and promote social, economic and political freedom. To support the growth of this channel, become an academy of ideas supporting member and access over 92 videos exclusive to members. Learn more at academy of ideas dot com slash members. This channel is made possible by the support of our members.