Tag: Free Speech

By on

Should somebody be allowed to say anything they want even if it is offensive to other people in the community or, more importantly, is offensive to people within a hearing distance of the speech? I am Free Speech absolutist. Say whatever you want. There is, however, a down side to speaking your mind freely. Someone who hears you is free to think you are an asshole. If they think you are an asshole, they can boycott your business and encourage others to boycott your business as well. I am perfectly fine with Free Speech practiced in this way.

A lot of Free Speech advocates are critical of what they see as Cancel Culture. They think that they can say anything about Trans People, as an example, without consequence. They think that good people just speaking their mind are losing jobs because Cancel Culture advocates disagrees with what they are saying and fight back. So what? What is wrong with trying to stop someone who disagrees with you. It certainly is their right to disagree and to organize against you.

But, then, Cancel Culture is stifling free speech. Only if you agree to shut up about it. This is what is so great about Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais. They continue to speak their minds freely even though there are people who passionately disagree with them. So far, both comedians are still in business even though they are being heavily criticized for what they are saying. Now, if you think that what you are saying is going to stop people from attending your shows or hiring you at comedy clubs, you are at choice. Stop saying what you are saying or continue to face the wrath. But, I’m afraid, you are also a really a bad advocate of Free Speech because you don’t like what people are saying about you because you practiced your right to Free Speech. That’s just not the way Free Speech works. Free Speech means saying what you want even though you know you are going to make people angry and still deciding to say it anyway. Complaining about Cancel Culture, however, makes you look incredibly lame.

By on

During the 2008 Presidential Election, I talked with a man who thought Barrack Obama was a Muslim. I tried to correct him. He didn’t believe me. Several friends joined the conversation but nothing anyone said would change the man’s mind. I don’t know why we we pursued the matter because I knew from the start it was hopeless. This didn’t stop me from trying. I thought it was important that he understood that Obama wasn’t a Muslim. This was a lie and, as long as he understood that was a lie, he was free to vote for anyone he wanted. Of course, I failed miserably. He still believed Obama was a Muslim when our conversation ended.

This experience was quite frustrating. I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me as long as we are working with the same facts. But instead of arguing about what a fact means, we were arguing on what a fact was. I took Obama at his word that he was a Christian. The other man believed what someone mistakenly told him on the internet. We both believed our facts even though both couldn’t be true. How can you have an honest argument when you can choose your facts?

This explosion of conflicting facts has people wanting to keep misinformation from reaching the public. Can we stop the spread of false information? More importantly, should we stop the spread of false information? The world be a better place if people heard only the truth but how can we do it in such a way that our civil liberties are protected?

It when I reach that last question where I begin to feel differently about removing lies from public debates.

In my attempt to persuade my acquaintance that Obama wasn’t a Muslim, I gave him new and accurate information. The truth, however, and unfortunately, didn’t change his mind. The shining light of truth is no match for the closed mind. The truth quite simply didn’t matter. The answer, however, isn’t keeping the lie from the close mind. The internet isn’t the only source of misinformation. Humans have been spreading lies for thousands of years without the help of modern technology. Keeping lies off the internet only stops the speed, not the spread.

What, then, is the advantage of keeping lies off the internet. The lie doesn’t go away peacefully. The lie is still there waiting for someone to pick it up and carry it to a new person. Wouldn’t it be better to know the lie and be able to battle the lie instead of keeping a lie from the closed mind?

Don’t Social Media companies have a responsibility to the public to have truthful information on their sites? I am torn here. Do they? Isn’t Social Media supposed to be the town square? Facebook is offering a place to talk and not a court room for evaluating truth. Social Media companies presently police their squares for bad behavior. It is primarily a passive monitoring and works best when people are misbehaving. People prone to offense will always find something to be offended about. The Social Media police are kept busy evaluating these infractions.

Even this minimal policing has troublesome aspects. Who is monitoring? What do they believe? Where do they draw the line as opposed to someone else who holds a different set of beliefs? How much harm can a lie do versus how much damage does it do to not hear the truth. Don’t get me wrong lies are harmful. I would prefer that everyone tell the truth. That just isn’t realistic. Lies are always going to happen as long as humans are involved. We can only respond with the truth whenever a lie arises. To tell the truth, I must know the truth.

I can live with closed minded people reading lies on the internet as long as I get the truth as well. In order to insure this happens, I’m afraid the lies must be heard as well as the truth.