Normally, I write something that is ironic or humorous on Fridays but today, I want to talk about a study that I recently came across that I think is important to understand in our current media environment. It concerns the current debate about free speech.
What I miss, however, is a critical thought regarding the limitation of freedom of speech. After all, who determines what is "extreme" and what can still be said? How is extreme defined? Since there are controversies on many topics and there is not always an objective truth for many highly complex issues, it is quite dangerous to limit freedom of speech (e.g. if one is of the opinion that quotas are not a good solution to eliminate injustice, then this can be understood by a certain side as an "extreme" opinion that is "dangerous" for justice and democracy). Moreover, it is always forgotten that certain statements are relevant under criminal law. It is by no means the case that one can say anything without legal consequences. The law sets the limits of freedom of speech. But if you want to limit freedom of speech beyond the limits of the law, this can become a wonderful tool for one of the extreme sides to impose their own worldview.
At the end of the day, the Nazis did nothing other than limit freedom of speech and ban everything that they considered "extreme". The fact that our freedom of speech is guaranteed in the German constitution (!) has its historical justification.
I also think that there were many other and more important reasons why the Nazis were able to seize power (or vice versa, I don't think that one simply had to restrict freedom of speech in order to prevent the seizure of power).
Very understandable response from a German with the historical baggage that is sadly a major factor for that nation
Free speech nations however were the successful answer to Nazi tyranny
If you censor free speech who censors the censors?
I am afraid the price a free democratic society has to pay to survive is a full on freedom of expression with its warts and all
I think a little more trust In the ability of the average citizens to smell ot the truth is needed
The alternatives of a police state like China ,Russia,Cuba etc don’t seem to work for their people
As little censorship as possible-if any at all - is the only safe way of maintaining our freedoms which make us in the West the successful societies that we currently enjoy
If you look at the radio study you cite, it is far from clear that there is a direct connection between radio and support for the Nazis, despite the authors' claims.
Even if we suppose there is, you have not included the significant finding that it seems to have mainly bolstered support among already nationalist/anti-semitic areas and had a negative impact (ie. decreased support) in areas where the opposite was true.
Beyond this, you give them impression the Nazis used the radio to come to power. To the contrary, they came to power and then used the radio. At that point they were not exactly competing in an open forum of ideas. This was a totalitarian state, which blocked any other meaningful opposition from having a media presence. You claim that Germany is a good example today but you could have made the same point about Weimar Germany - a good regulator of speech that carried balanced opinions. The trouble was that when a totalitarian government took their place, they could use the same controlling mechanism to block opposition. So the problem seems to be that the system you describe works until it doesn't. A totalitarian government can use the same control mechanism in a much more sinister way than a bland one. Until that happens, you can keep saying "see it's fine, the slippery slope argument isn't true".
You also seem to contradict your own point. You say that Zuck and tech people want uninhibited free speech but at the same time note that Facebook (as all social media platforms do) employs a large number of content moderators to deal with the sorts of problems you highlight.
Finally, if you look at the US, the appetite for Trump candidates is massively down and it seems very likely he's going to hammered if he tries to run next year. In the UK, it is hard to see anyone in government, or who actually stands a chance of coming to power, as being particularly extreme.
Alex Jones, who you also mention, continues to be seen as a nut, is getting hammered by lawsuits and it is hard to see any mainstream, respectable politician wanting to appear on his show or gain his endorsement.
To me this suggests that the open forum has worked - people have been presented with a set of ideas and, by and large, seem to want moderate politicians.
Incidentally, I think your vision of the world has already come into play in the UK, where we have extremely strict laws on free speech. For example, if I want to point out biological facts or state facts about terrorism or crime statistics (again facts, not opinions) I would potentially face fines, legal action and lose my job. Note that none of these things would be advocating violence but would be made to appear so by 'hate speech' advocates - is that a positive thing?
I'm not sure I appreciate the nuance of the analogy used. You state that "free speech absolutism" is the problem to be solved then you talk about a fascist, Nazi regime NOT allowing "free speech?" Free speech is only one part of a democracy. I think history proves time and again when people allow the government to encroach on their freedoms, democracies fail. Of course, the whole point of free speech is not to have a government between information and people. To argue that "some" are more enlightened and know better about what can and can't be uttered is the exact path to tyranny. I see the Nazi regime as an argument FOR free speech absolutism.
Absolutely disagree. Just another evolution of "trust your government and elites because you're too stupid to figure it out on your own". Your example rests on the elites taking control of the media. You're arguing against your own argument. No logic here.
It is no surprise to hear from commentators that limits to individual freedom to free speech is absolutly out of discussion. Even when that freedom goes at the expense of others. It is simply an application of the biblical certainty that the democratic process is unable to define rational criteria to regulation. Absolute positions are an efficient way to discuss content.
Very disappointing commentary and inappropriate demonstration. A healthy society is built on checks and balances. Freedom of thought, speech and action precisely are the means, not dogma, propaganda, censorship... and more.
It's so refreshing to see someone coming from the financial market and having this kind of clarity and sensibility to our bizarre situation. "Free speech" is being used by movements around the world to attack democracies and basic rights because they feel like their opinion is so important it should be able to overpower everyone else's.
This kind of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty caused the riots of january 8th in Brazil, where every branch of the brazilian government, our three most important democratic institutions were brutally attacked, demanding democracy, free speech and fighting a communist ilusion, asked for another militay dictatorship. For democracy. Spreading lies, hate and fear. Almost always coincidentally associated with extremism.
I can’t decide if this is a dumb argument ending with a lazy conclusion or a lazy argument ending with a dumb conclusion. You got me thinking there. smh
This is SO wrong! Who is to say where the limits will be? The government? Unelected mandarins? The will of the people MUST be respected.
Your argument is elitist.
Democracy is not perfect, but is better than everything else. One of the hazards is free speech.
A guy named Orwell wrote a significant book that illustrates how easily what you advocate for is then abused.
We must not base our goals on fear. I may not agree with, nor like, what you have to say, but I very much respect your right to say it!!
Very interesting article again!
What I miss, however, is a critical thought regarding the limitation of freedom of speech. After all, who determines what is "extreme" and what can still be said? How is extreme defined? Since there are controversies on many topics and there is not always an objective truth for many highly complex issues, it is quite dangerous to limit freedom of speech (e.g. if one is of the opinion that quotas are not a good solution to eliminate injustice, then this can be understood by a certain side as an "extreme" opinion that is "dangerous" for justice and democracy). Moreover, it is always forgotten that certain statements are relevant under criminal law. It is by no means the case that one can say anything without legal consequences. The law sets the limits of freedom of speech. But if you want to limit freedom of speech beyond the limits of the law, this can become a wonderful tool for one of the extreme sides to impose their own worldview.
At the end of the day, the Nazis did nothing other than limit freedom of speech and ban everything that they considered "extreme". The fact that our freedom of speech is guaranteed in the German constitution (!) has its historical justification.
I also think that there were many other and more important reasons why the Nazis were able to seize power (or vice versa, I don't think that one simply had to restrict freedom of speech in order to prevent the seizure of power).
Very understandable response from a German with the historical baggage that is sadly a major factor for that nation
Free speech nations however were the successful answer to Nazi tyranny
If you censor free speech who censors the censors?
I am afraid the price a free democratic society has to pay to survive is a full on freedom of expression with its warts and all
I think a little more trust In the ability of the average citizens to smell ot the truth is needed
The alternatives of a police state like China ,Russia,Cuba etc don’t seem to work for their people
As little censorship as possible-if any at all - is the only safe way of maintaining our freedoms which make us in the West the successful societies that we currently enjoy
Malcolm Beaton
An interesting post but I don't agree with you.
If you look at the radio study you cite, it is far from clear that there is a direct connection between radio and support for the Nazis, despite the authors' claims.
Even if we suppose there is, you have not included the significant finding that it seems to have mainly bolstered support among already nationalist/anti-semitic areas and had a negative impact (ie. decreased support) in areas where the opposite was true.
Beyond this, you give them impression the Nazis used the radio to come to power. To the contrary, they came to power and then used the radio. At that point they were not exactly competing in an open forum of ideas. This was a totalitarian state, which blocked any other meaningful opposition from having a media presence. You claim that Germany is a good example today but you could have made the same point about Weimar Germany - a good regulator of speech that carried balanced opinions. The trouble was that when a totalitarian government took their place, they could use the same controlling mechanism to block opposition. So the problem seems to be that the system you describe works until it doesn't. A totalitarian government can use the same control mechanism in a much more sinister way than a bland one. Until that happens, you can keep saying "see it's fine, the slippery slope argument isn't true".
You also seem to contradict your own point. You say that Zuck and tech people want uninhibited free speech but at the same time note that Facebook (as all social media platforms do) employs a large number of content moderators to deal with the sorts of problems you highlight.
Finally, if you look at the US, the appetite for Trump candidates is massively down and it seems very likely he's going to hammered if he tries to run next year. In the UK, it is hard to see anyone in government, or who actually stands a chance of coming to power, as being particularly extreme.
Alex Jones, who you also mention, continues to be seen as a nut, is getting hammered by lawsuits and it is hard to see any mainstream, respectable politician wanting to appear on his show or gain his endorsement.
To me this suggests that the open forum has worked - people have been presented with a set of ideas and, by and large, seem to want moderate politicians.
Incidentally, I think your vision of the world has already come into play in the UK, where we have extremely strict laws on free speech. For example, if I want to point out biological facts or state facts about terrorism or crime statistics (again facts, not opinions) I would potentially face fines, legal action and lose my job. Note that none of these things would be advocating violence but would be made to appear so by 'hate speech' advocates - is that a positive thing?
Strongly disagree
I'm not sure I appreciate the nuance of the analogy used. You state that "free speech absolutism" is the problem to be solved then you talk about a fascist, Nazi regime NOT allowing "free speech?" Free speech is only one part of a democracy. I think history proves time and again when people allow the government to encroach on their freedoms, democracies fail. Of course, the whole point of free speech is not to have a government between information and people. To argue that "some" are more enlightened and know better about what can and can't be uttered is the exact path to tyranny. I see the Nazi regime as an argument FOR free speech absolutism.
Absolutely disagree. Just another evolution of "trust your government and elites because you're too stupid to figure it out on your own". Your example rests on the elites taking control of the media. You're arguing against your own argument. No logic here.
Sorry! The app went crazy on me and told me nothing had been posted. My apologies.
It is no surprise to hear from commentators that limits to individual freedom to free speech is absolutly out of discussion. Even when that freedom goes at the expense of others. It is simply an application of the biblical certainty that the democratic process is unable to define rational criteria to regulation. Absolute positions are an efficient way to discuss content.
Quite possibly the stupidest thing I read this week but I support your right to post it :)
Very disappointing post, lacking perspective, common sense and moderation. Propaganda, censorship, regulation ..... flourishing and widespread. Sad
Very disappointing commentary and inappropriate demonstration. A healthy society is built on checks and balances. Freedom of thought, speech and action precisely are the means, not dogma, propaganda, censorship... and more.
It's so refreshing to see someone coming from the financial market and having this kind of clarity and sensibility to our bizarre situation. "Free speech" is being used by movements around the world to attack democracies and basic rights because they feel like their opinion is so important it should be able to overpower everyone else's.
This kind of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty caused the riots of january 8th in Brazil, where every branch of the brazilian government, our three most important democratic institutions were brutally attacked, demanding democracy, free speech and fighting a communist ilusion, asked for another militay dictatorship. For democracy. Spreading lies, hate and fear. Almost always coincidentally associated with extremism.
Great fan of your work Joachim!
I can’t decide if this is a dumb argument ending with a lazy conclusion or a lazy argument ending with a dumb conclusion. You got me thinking there. smh