I’m glad I could generate some discussion. I don’t think we’re too far apart on this. My attempt at being concise may have lost some of the nuances. We certainly have an obligation to use our speech responsibly. The question then becomes: How is that obligation enforced? Ultimately, the best way to counter bad speech is with more speech.
I don’t want people saying hateful or false things either. In the case of hate speech, first of all, let them identify themselves, and then we can decide if this is someone we want to stay away from or someone whom we can possibly persuade to come back from the brink. Getting someone fired might marginalize them in some ways, but it likely won’t change their mind, and it may even give them fodder for recruiting people to their toxic worldview.
As for false statements, we need to distinguish between good-faith errors and intentional deception. With a deliberate lie, the issue isn’t really the speech itself but the intent to do harm, which is why defamation is illegal. If, for example, a pharmaceutical company is lying about a drug’s effectiveness or side-effects, the issue is the negligence and the reckless disregard for people’s health and safety. We need to be able to prove that someone is intentionally lying, and then once we do, people will hopefully be much less inclined to trust that person.
When someone is more innocently in the wrong, it’s important to make sure that person is still listening to other ideas. And we can use this as an opportunity to sharpen our own thinking and think more deeply on the topic so we can communicate it more effectively and be more persuasive. If we somehow make it so someone can’t express their wrong conclusion, it could trigger stubbornness in some, causing them to double down and move themselves into an echo chamber somewhere under the radar, where they can gradually recruit more people to their cause while painting themselves as victims of an Orwellian dystopia.
From the governmental standpoint, I don’t trust anyone to draw a legal line between what’s hateful and what’s merely rude, nor would I trust anyone to enforce that distinction in a consistent manner. And I wouldn’t want the government to be able to legally deem anything true or false. I think we’re on the same page there.
On the individual level, we have every right to decide to stop associating with someone or to not hire someone or to not grant them a platform on our real or digital property. If it’s not our platform, it’s not our call. But we can always respond.
I’m probably forgetting some point I meant to make, but in any case, thank you for the thoughtful response. I appreciate the manner in which you two conduct these podcasts.
I’m glad I could generate some discussion. I don’t think we’re too far apart on this. My attempt at being concise may have lost some of the nuances. We certainly have an obligation to use our speech responsibly. The question then becomes: How is that obligation enforced? Ultimately, the best way to counter bad speech is with more speech.
I don’t want people saying hateful or false things either. In the case of hate speech, first of all, let them identify themselves, and then we can decide if this is someone we want to stay away from or someone whom we can possibly persuade to come back from the brink. Getting someone fired might marginalize them in some ways, but it likely won’t change their mind, and it may even give them fodder for recruiting people to their toxic worldview.
As for false statements, we need to distinguish between good-faith errors and intentional deception. With a deliberate lie, the issue isn’t really the speech itself but the intent to do harm, which is why defamation is illegal. If, for example, a pharmaceutical company is lying about a drug’s effectiveness or side-effects, the issue is the negligence and the reckless disregard for people’s health and safety. We need to be able to prove that someone is intentionally lying, and then once we do, people will hopefully be much less inclined to trust that person.
When someone is more innocently in the wrong, it’s important to make sure that person is still listening to other ideas. And we can use this as an opportunity to sharpen our own thinking and think more deeply on the topic so we can communicate it more effectively and be more persuasive. If we somehow make it so someone can’t express their wrong conclusion, it could trigger stubbornness in some, causing them to double down and move themselves into an echo chamber somewhere under the radar, where they can gradually recruit more people to their cause while painting themselves as victims of an Orwellian dystopia.
From the governmental standpoint, I don’t trust anyone to draw a legal line between what’s hateful and what’s merely rude, nor would I trust anyone to enforce that distinction in a consistent manner. And I wouldn’t want the government to be able to legally deem anything true or false. I think we’re on the same page there.
On the individual level, we have every right to decide to stop associating with someone or to not hire someone or to not grant them a platform on our real or digital property. If it’s not our platform, it’s not our call. But we can always respond.
I’m probably forgetting some point I meant to make, but in any case, thank you for the thoughtful response. I appreciate the manner in which you two conduct these podcasts.