Speech Theories
In class and online, we have read about speech theories surrounding the first amendment, reasons why we should have open and free discourse. Some of the theories seem counterintuitive at first, but they make sense. I'll do a brief overview of some of the less relevant terms, and go more in depth with others.
Participation in Self Government
• The belief that politicians must have an open and equal platform for them to be able to broadcast their ideas from for the integrity of the democratic process comes from Alexander Meiklejohn. This belief makes common sense. Twitter's decision to ban former president Donald Trump seems to be in violation of this, but it occurred after Trump had clearly lost the election.
Individual Self Fulfillment
• C. Edwin Baker came up with the idea that free speech allows individuals to express and find their own identity through self-expression. This tracks with the 1st amendment, that freedom of speech is a human right, a dignity for people to be engrained with from birth. This is definitely one of the most positive aspects of freedom of speech.
Check on Governmental Power
• I'm not sure how I feel about this one, check in with me in a couple of years. To put in short, if the press discovers abuses of power in office, then people will collectively vote them out of office.
Promote Tolerance
• Tolerance of other people's beliefs and ideas is a founding principle of American democracy, innately expected of Americans. Without the ability to have a fair discussion, without hateful beliefs clouding judgement, democracy falters. I'll talk more on this later.
Promote Innovation
• The ability to freely discuss new ideas and developments without fear of persecution allows collaborative innovation to flourish in free society, as ideas build off of one another.
Protect Dissent
• A core belief enshrined in the 1st amendment. Everyone, even those who we disagree with, should be protected in their speech.
The Marketplace of Ideas
The term was first used in a Supreme Court case in 1919, Abrams v. United States by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes. Holmes used the term to describe the belief when ideas compete in an open forum, the truth comes out on top. This is supported in academic circles, where the peer review process submits academic works to an open forum of criticism to determine its integrity. The internet is a bad example of this practice, as online forums have a tendency to become separated based on political beliefs, so ideas are not subject to an open forum. Not only that, but in an open forum, people must be dedicated to real debate, where online most debate is done in bad faith, either trolling or ad hominem attacks rather than nuanced discussion. It becomes difficult to engage in good faith debate when one side is unwilling to change their view from the outset of the discussion. People need to be less afraid of their ideas being wrong, or more nuanced than they want to believe. Relativism sucks.
Stable Change
Stable Change is the belief that those in society with extreme or disturbing views should be allowed to express these views. The reasoning is nuanced. Firstly, the belief is, if we allow these people to "vent", they should become less angry and less likely to pursue more serious and harmful action. Secondly, it's a good idea to let the crazy people identify themselves as crazy, so you can know. Of course, this doesn't mean that people can't be punished for harmful speech, as defined in class. It's just that everyone, even the crazy people, have a right to say what they want to. And maybe that isn't such a bad thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment