USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20011012.0839 (On Screen via long range sensors): It seems a surprising number of people don't understand what the First Amendment actually means, or the more general principle of "Freedom of Expression". The basic concept is that in a vigorous marketplace of ideas, that the majority of voters will discern the truth. The reason is that different people with different points of view will express their opinions and that other people will then listen to those points of view and criticize them. Then the authors will rebut, and so on. Criticism is an essential step in this process; it provides the opportunity for the voters to hear about mistakes and flaws in the argument. If the original speaker has made a good case for his point of view, then the criticisms will come up as weak and ineffectual. If, on the other hand, the original speaker made a flawed argument then the criticisms will be devastating.

That's the point: freedom of expression does not include freedom to be free of being criticized. What the First Amendment prevents is any laws which punish free speech. But that's all that it prevents. It does not, for example, guarantee a platform. People who are used to having a channel whereby their political speech is spread widely do not have that by right. In the marketplace of ideas, there are enough different channels so that all the important ideas will get out. So, for example, it is completely legal for a newspaper to fire a reporter because of what he writes, or for a magazine to stop carrying a syndicated column because the author says things the magazine's publisher doesn't care for. Neither the reporter nor the syndicated columnist have a right to have their work published.

While a teacher in front of a class is entitled to a certain level of decorum when teaching their assigned subject, they are not entitled to be free of criticism if they use that position to express political opinions. As soon as they do so they cease to be professors and start to be citizens, equal to the citizens who sit in their classes. They have a freedom to express themselves but so do the students. And the students have the right to criticize the professor if they disagree with what he's said. If he truly believes what he is saying is important and valuable, he will not let that stop him or dissuade him. If, on the other hand, he is somehow intimidated by this then it suggests that he isn't truly certain of what he's saying -- for part of freedom of expression is the responsibility to take the consequences for your expression. Freedom of expression extends only as far as preventing criminal penalties for speech, but it does not prevent, in any regard whatever, other people from deciding that they do not wish to associate with you because of what you say. That is their right. If your message is important to you, you'll accept that -- and many people have. Some very brave people have accepted social ostracism so as to deliver messages they think are important. Cowards, on the other hand, will bow to social pressure.

I happen to think that Chomsky is an ass, for example, but in this regard at least he has it right. He's been roundly criticized for what he's been saying lately, but I have seen nothing to suggest that he's complained about that fact. He seems to understand how important the free flow of criticism is in the marketplace of ideas. He delivers his ideas, and others deliver theirs, and all of us listen and decide who is right. And that is how it should be.

If any one person has the freedom to express themself without being criticized or having anyone express a dissenting opinion, then no-one else is free at all. Freedom of expression must include freedom to criticise and disagree. The proper response to criticism is not to complain, but to step up to and answer the criticism and to try to prevail based on the issues. (discuss)