Why is Free Speech so Important?

This clip is taken from the talk, "How to be an Actual Skeptic", available in full here: • How to be an ACTUAL Sk...
If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
Free speech is a perennially hot topic, and with good reason. It is considered by many as a foundational freedom, and often as second only to the right to life. Yet the right to speak is really a disguised form of the right to listen, and thus restricting one person's right to speak is to tell another what they are and are not allowed to hear.

[@ps5622]

You can see the influence of Hitchens in the way Alex expresses himself!

[@LouisGedo]

Tru dat

[@devilishegg]

I've noticed that too! I feel like it lends itself towards debates as it very hard to interject or cut someone off when their pauses are often mid-sentence and the rest flows. It's almost like instead of pausing at punctuation, the pauses occur before the point of the sentence and the next sentence flows immediately.

[@bryanreed742]

Indeed, but he's much more intellectually rigorous. I for one am very happy to have someone like him arguing for things that I value.

[@alittax]

Can you please point out in what way?

[@Zahlenteufel1]

100% agree. This dude can live rent free in my head.

[@aleksszukovskis2074]

I like not being shot for my thoughts.

[@JM-us3fr]

I like not having very shootable thoughts 😜 No but seriously, free speech is important

[@keeparguing611]

holy sht looking at freedom of speech from the perspective of "right to listen to" rather than "right to speak" really changes the argument, in a good way

[@davidevans3223]

Probably the best argument I've heard

[@TheRealMadDogMac]

Perfectly stated, especially with what’s going on right now. Going to be sharing this one. Another great video. Thank you Alex!

[@thewackenpilgrim]

Thanks for putting it in this format. Easier to share it this way!

[@stuartjackiegraymccoy8151]

Free speech is a wonderful concept but isn't it about who controls the medium and messaging? Is it open and accessible to all? Is there equity and balance for the platforms of free speech?

[@HaIsKuL]

@G and what does consequence mean? who determines what crosses the line and what's their safeguard to prevent themselves from being authoritarian and others using that for malicious purposes?

[@HaIsKuL]

I think equity, balance, equal access, and such are luxuries of the individual, that is others or the state can't and shouldn't provide for and enforce it. A right to free speech means the government or other people can't silence you, but it's not obligated to promote it to reach some sort of parity. I can speak out about some newspaper, but I'm not owed my own paper or news media. If some aren't listened to as much as others due to people's choices, it doesn't seem like be something to be "corrected." People's freedom to listen and not listen to whomever inevitably results in inequitable speech with respect to how many and how influential people's speech becomes. The main problem I think social media companies have regarding this is selective enforcement making it false advertising that they're for free speech, not just when they agree with it.

[@Dekarmi]

In some languages (at least in Ukrainian, Russian, Polish etc) the equivalent for freedom of speech is freedom of word. Without specifying whether it is spoken or written.

[@christianmeracidre4474]

Free speech is so important, our society won't exist as it is today without it. To quote Dr. Jordan Peterson: "Free speech is the method in which we keep our society functioning". There's no other way. Without it we won't be able to point out our problems, have consensus and then solve them. As Alex said "speech is an extension of our thoughts." We must speak bad ideas badly, or we won't be able to think.

[@SarahET]

Alex, I have a question for a similar topic Should we allow anti-democratic candidates, i.e. candidates who want to make a more authoritarian system and only use our democracy as a tool for their goal, be allowed to run as candidates in democracy?

[@Richard_Nickerson]

No. They're demonstrably against the system of government they're running for, so why should they? They want that type, then they can go find that type and run there. Authoritarianism literally always leads to suffering and invariably some kind of revolution and reform. If revolution is more acceptable than the thing being revolted against, then why even allow the thing that needs to be revolted against?

[@SarahET]

@@Richard_Nickerson I agree, I see this as a tangential issue on paradox of tolerance and whether we should give free speech to nazis, those who only use it to remove it

[@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori]

Yes. If authoritarianism is a bad idea than it can be debunked against. Just like the argument that we shouldn't restrict speech because some think some couldn't handle some form of speech. Arguments and ideas of other forms of govt should be allowed to be listened by folks who wants to listen. Let the arguments for the idea live or die based on it's own merit or demerit. Democracy succeeds because the genaral public is in agreement that it's the best form of govt we've got now, not because it silences it's competition. If that was the case, it would no longer be worthy of it's name. IMO.

[@fritanke2318]

If we don't allow them to run we don't have a democracy. It is up to you and me to make sure they don't win elections. The big question is how we prevent these antidemocratic forces from changing the laws in such a way that there is no democracy left.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

@@SarahET Right: A truly tolerant society is actually intolerant of intolerance.

[@AirScottyfpv]

Mini Hitchens is a genius.

[@nathan87]

I agree with the general direction, but I don't think it's quite right to say "it's not about the right to speak, it's about the right to listen". Even if everybody is listening, the censoring of certain arguments may lead to consistent views that would be inconsistent in the absence of the censorship. As I see it, there are two sides to this coin: the RIGHT to speak and the DUTY to listen. It is only when both of these parts are exercised together that free speech becomes the engine that maximally promotes the consistency of thoughts and beliefs, both as individuals and as a society.

[@HaIsKuL]

Were you ever in a household where you couldn't articulate your thoughts or people didn't listen? You will keep walking into walls, so to speak, because you will have to keep facing metaphysical reality simply by behaviour, without the guide of reason or logic. The simplest tasks and problems will require the people in the household a dozen tries and maybe a hundred lifetimes for anything important. That's just in your home. Now, imagine that crude unsophisticated way of approaching life with an entire population, like a town, a city, or a country.

[@henryginn7490]

I think freedom of expression more accurately encapsulates the ideas that people want when they say freedom of speech, it certainly avoids many of the awkward counters. For example writing down an idea, and saying an idea are both forms of expression, but freedom of speech only protects the latter even though they should be treated on the same level. There are also cases like screaming fire in a crowded place, threatening to perform acts of extreme violence, plotting to commit acts of terrorism, libel, sharing sensitive information, etc that can all be acts of speech, but there are very good reasons you would want to restrict these. This is an attack on freedom of speech, but I don't think it is an issue as it wouldn't be an attack on freedom of expression. Screaming "fire" is not the expression of an idea, and my examples aren't the kind of thing that people think should be protected when freedom of speech comes up, so I don't think freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be used interchangeably.

[@alansmith4748]

What if you are screaming fire in a cowded place and really believe there is a fire?

[@xenoblad]

The problem with free speech is that it’s proponents ALWAYS have parameters and they don’t tackle the complexity and nuances of those parameters. If the criteria for censorship is harm, then dialogue on what exactly is harm and when is it sufficient harm is dramatically more interesting than whether you agree with some vague notion of broad speech with some undisclosed parameters.

[@robinpclarke]

"i’s proponents ALWAYS have parameters" NOT so. The only proper "justifications for limitations on free speech" are not really that. The only (NOT REALLY AN EXCEPTION) "exception" ("limititation") is words that are constructive of a crime. For instance "There's a Buddhist coming in now and the knife is under that coat". Or the mythical shouting of "fire", which is actually nothing to do with words because it is exactly equivalent to setting off a fire alarm. Breach of confidentiality, including doxing, is another class of communication constructive of a crime.

[@xenoblad]

@@robinpclarke dude, you’re describing parameters, and your rational is circular. In some countries blasphemy are constructive of a crime. In others counter-revolutionary statements are constructive of a crime. Claiming that the parameters is whatever is a crime doesn’t tell us anything about why the censorship is justified. Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you.

[@robinpclarke]

@@xenoblad Thanks for your reply, and yes you are misunderstanding. Though understandably as it is original with myself and a bit "abstract". Before coming to my main points here, I should comment on the two examples you raise: "In some countries blasphemy are constructive of a crime. In others counter-revolutionary statements are constructive of a crime." Firstly you typed the word "ALWAYS" in capitals. No-one is disputing that SOME proponents have their "parameters" (which I would rather call exceptions). All I am saying here is that SOME of us (at least myself anyway) do not make exceptions (and that no-one should). Secondly about those examples, those are not what I mean by "constructive of a crime", rather they ARE (or are DECREED to be) crimes (of speech), namely crime of blasphemy etc. Now to the main point. "Constructive of a crime" means constructive of a criminal event which is not itself a matter of communication. Thus the (entirely mythical) shouting of "fire" is exactly equivalent to setting off a false fire alarm, which is a crime of false alarm irrespective of whether language is used or not. It is constructive of the crime of raising a false alarm. The other example of the knife is constructive of a crime of murder (or at least assault) again nothing to do with language per se. Likewise a breach of confidentiality can be constructive of a crime of fraud, impersonation, theft, etc, again nothing to do with language per se. I hope that's made my point clear enough now. Cheers.

[@xenoblad]

@@robinpclarke you can commit blasphemy without engaging in deliberate communication. You can be illegally counter-revolutionary without engaging in deliberate communication. None of the above need spoken or written words. The topic of free speech also goes way beyond mere speech and writing. Obscenity laws for example limit, for better or worse, various kinds of expression. This is especially true with regard to rating systems for various media (e.g. R rated movies or M rated games). If you can say X, but others are barred from hearing X, is the level of freedom of speech the same if no one was barred from hearing X?

[@robinpclarke]

@@xenoblad None of that is anything to do with free speech, or any rebuttal of anything I have written above. I am not here to engage in silly games of the "I am right you are wrong" variety. It's best not to make a public exhibition of your muddles on public sites such as this. Byebye.

[@dinobotpwnz]

It's very sad that the judge handling Julian Assange's case just demonstrated how little respect for free speech the High Court has.

[@spacemonkey7802]

Wow I never thought of it that way

[@jacobd1984]

Interesting. I don't necessarily agree that it's always going to be patronizing to suggest some speech might be too much for certain people to handle (depending on their experiences in life; I'm mainly referring to trauma and/or lifelong experiences with slurs). I don't accept that the answer is restrictions on speech either though. The laws have a broad responsibility to keep us safe, but this particular question of safety is outside of the scope of government imo. I think a case can be made for some things like you- know-what Denial (at least in Germany and maybe Austria), but even that's kind of dicey. On the other hand, if you're talking about this in terms of a "right" to listen, it's possible to argue that some things simply can't contribute any benefit to society. In that case though, I think you'd have a much easier time making the argument from a purely social perspective; if you shifted it over to laws, that would be much trickier, perhaps impossible, because then you have to put the decision in someone's hands at the end of the day, whether that be a single person or a group.

[@jacobd1984]

I also don't see saying as secondary to hearing, just because the second requires the first. So, as I currently understand things, I disagree that we don't care about someone's right to speak. But in any case, I'll have to think about these points some more. All of this is my immediate response, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

[@ariendb]

What about things like hate speech or speech inciting violence?

[@humesspoon3176]

@fatopossum Where are you from? There’s numerous examples around the world on how neo-Nazism is handled.

[@kameraderz]

Alex. I used to hold the same argument like yours towards free speech. But then I learnt there's this thing called microaggression, the danger of free speech isn't the free speech itself, it's the status quo, we hear what we wanna hear, we believe what we wanna believe. For instance, to see how this argument for free speech is ridiculous is too take it to the extreme, let's give a platform for "racist" comedian, he's not racist but he's making racist joke, many people enjoy his joke, but there must be a fraction of people from those who laugh that actually enjoy being literally racist. Those people won't able to see what they enjoy could lead to harmful things, because people around them have the same perspective. One day, these people may be slightly using racism in form of verbal expression, people still okay with that, then physical expression, then.. homicide. Of course it would be stupid to just cancel the comedian, but letting him know that his jokes could lead to harmful things could help the society. I realized that taking position against the free speech as a leftist could backfire, that's why I don't think abolishing free speech is the right thing to do. Restricting it could help. Again, the problem of free speech is the status quo. There are still so many people normalizing unnecessarily killing animals, wage theft, etc. If I fully support free speech, then the group that'll be able to speak freely is those group of people. Minor progressive groups won't be able to fight them easily, because the stage already dominated by the conservative. Regular people that don't engage with the issues would just think us as a noise, then stay with their conservative's view. And.. that's why I changed my mind about free speech in a purist's view. Note: not a native english speaker, sorry if what I wrote a little bit confusing.

[@saranggawane4719]

You can't be more wrong about free speech. And the one thing you can do to fundamentally destroy all intelligent discourse is to 'restrict' free speech. For I give you my word, in no circumstances can there ever be produced a sufficiently objective justification of why one form of speech is worthy of censorship while other is not. What you see disruptive as today might be the norm of tomorrow and vice versa. The fact that due to my contemporary understanding of metaethics and the human world I choose to abridge the freedom of certain individuals is in reality tantamount to the justification of many historical crimes like Slavery and Colonialism. Speech rooted in the racism might be and let's say should be repulsive to someone. However, it is the masses who through the application of their conscience reject to it. As Alex rightly said it is not the right to speak but the right to listen that is more imperative here. The triumph of free speech lies in the fact that it empowers backlash and conflict. For conflict fuels progress and development of new ideas. If you restrict the propagation of a word you stunt or at times prematurely kill the debate, discourse and the synthesis of new perpespectives that might have been triggered through it. If you restrict speech in the name of peace, harmony or affirmative action, you're just another ostensibly benevolent dictator.

[@MorningtonCrescent]

@@saranggawane4719 couldn't have said better myself. Well said indeed.

[@humesspoon3176]

I don’t know what evidence he bears in saying restricting a free “market” of ideas is going to make them more likely. Like, I don’t even know how you’d begin to research this topic historically, let alone sociologically, to come to a generalizable conclusion. This is also tough to study due to survivorship bias. The examples of ideas that failed to be restricted would act as evidence for his position. However, the restriction of ideas that failed due to restriction might not be known about at all, thusly giving us a deceptive picture of restriction subtly in favor of non-restriction. Some may say, “Hey, you can still count examples that we know about, but weren’t that popular,” and that’s obvious, but the former is still a confounder. Either way, I think this is a very surface level stance. It seems this is an excerpt, so maybe the larger video tackles this with more nuance.

[@WhoThisMonkey]

Religious people should allowed to voice their beliefs, just as much as rational people should be allowed to speak against them. Hopefully the religious will eventually start to listen to rationality then.

[@thomasthompson6378]

Well, then, Alex, so you're suggesting, aren't you, that pornography is a form of protected speech too? You're saying that the "Man-Boy" society of San Francisco should be able market their ideas? Sometimes, the thing that is being said is more dangerous -- even much more dangerous -- than supporting the freedom to publicly say it.

[@LouisGedo]

👍

[@busylivingnotdying]

Not all speech is just speech (it sometimes is MANIPULATION), and not all listening is just listening (it sometimes is BRAINWASHING). So I believe in ensuring an healthy back and forth dialogue. And I DON'T call that effort "de-platforming" because it isn't! Letting demagogues just "at it" is dangerous too! Some people just hammer away until they (through sheer will) run the opposition into the ground. Is that "speech" and "listening?"

[@davidevans3223]

What about the infinite gender theory nutters it's a belief that feelings override science and destroys women's sport's etc and makes gay straight etc meaningless they win because they are bullys and refuse to debate of course as they are nuts

[@busylivingnotdying]

@@davidevans3223 Yeah, I have seen some of that (there was an horrible "take-down" of Rationality Rules on KZbin over trans-women in sports that turned very ugly..). Although "infinite gender" is not as strange as you might suggest. Sex refer to the division in TWO as in male/female. Gender (in modern understanding) refer to what type of person you IDENTIFY as. Your identity is strictly PERSONAL (and there are eight billion "persons" out there, so ... ) But that's just the point. On both sides there are people who don't take the time to EVALUATE, but reduces their contribution to BASHING, and that ain't right (even when you bash on behalf of a minority) ;)

[@davidevans3223]

@@busylivingnotdying nope the dictionary definition of an adult female is a women men and women are very different and it's important for equality we recognise that there's many issue's from sport's to work places to harassment all women apparently get cat called and feel intimidated at some point it's not the same for men

[@davidevans3223]

@@busylivingnotdying you're talking about a belief system very few accept but are being forced it's not new it's dictators you accepting it will never make it true i know Jesus was real and the son of God would you let the law force you to believe that as my belief has very clear definitions of men and women I can't accept anything but biology science as reality. And you'll find we are all attracted by biology not identity gay and straight people will never be attracted to identify it's not possible

[@busylivingnotdying]

@@davidevans3223 Would you do me a favor? Would you put in punctuation (periods) and separate out your points by paragraphs? (Each point in a different paragraph) I'm not trying to be "smart." I'm just struggling to get your point ... and I think that would help in making it CLEAR. That would make the discussion better (It creates less mis-understanding)

[@romanski5811]

I think Alex should watch "Why Do People Want To Punch Nazis?" by Vaush ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/q3a3gXeEhL9opZI ) because Alex foolishly promoted the braindead video "Punch A Nazi" by Counter Arguments. The tolerance paradox is very relevant here.

[@seanwilliams3634]

Freedom of speech or morality of speech. Freedom of speech is a freedom to wickedness, freedom to lie, spread rumors.

[@ASMRyouVEGANyet]

You're on a slippery slope

[@macmac1022]

So what do you think of the laws that are going to be instate in the UK about supporting hamas? kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGjZpH6rgKyqq5o I am having a had a argument about it earlier. I ended with 2 questions. What do you think we should do then? Do you have any ideas for solutions so we are not just doing nothing? He did not respond to that yet.

[@stuartjackiegraymccoy8151]

What about holocaust deniers?

[@michaeltellurian825]

What about flat-earthers?

[@ASMRyouVEGANyet]

Let them deny. Doesn't mean we have to listen or agree with them. It is offensive but the more you fight against it the more they'll cry about it and become more aggressive trying to get their views heard.

[@georgerussell2947]

Forcing them to be silent pushes them into the underground. Making their views known allows them to be shown to be wrong by it hitting the free market place of ideas.

[@zandrey7009]

If I was stuck in a room with 100 people, and 5 of those were Nazis, I'd like to know who those people are. Free speech allows me to know that, and hopefully convince them to believe otherwise. Subversiveness will be synonymous with extremism without freedom of speech IMO.

[@mustafaidais8182]

if free will does not exist ...what is the meaning of free of speeech??😂😂😂😂

[@michaeltellurian825]

👍🤣

[@mustafaidais8182]

atheists on fire booooooom

[@mustafaidais8182]

@@michaeltellurian825 atheist non sense

[@michaeltellurian825]

@@mustafaidais8182 Belief in one of the gods is not required to believe in free will. I'm atheist and I still think your original comment is good, valid and funny.

[@mustafaidais8182]

@@michaeltellurian825 and your experimental evidence for this claim or it is just a blind believing?? HOW IRONY😉😉

[@Firewall-q7x]

Clown has spoken

[@ilovenature9077]

Should anti-vaxxers have freedom of speech?

[@MrHandsomeboynow]

Yes, the question is should you have the freedom to be persuaded. Did you even watch the video?

[@ilovenature9077]

@@MrHandsomeboynow I've seen the video, of course, and I believe everyone has the right to speech. I don't understand the difference between freedom to speech and freedom of be persuaded, it makes no sense to make a distinction. I think, however, that this freedom, like any freedom, should be proportionate to the greater good of society and contextualized in terms of cost-benefits.

[@ilovenature9077]

@@nickelchlorine2753 Many people, as we are seeing, are not interested in the logic of the arguments. In fact we live in a carnist world. On vaccines, I agree that there is dialogue, because I understand people's fears about this. I would not agree to grant the right to speech to dictators or would-be dictators.

[@ASMRyouVEGANyet]

What is an antivaxxer? Someone who simply opposes the current vax or all vax?

[@optillian4182]

Yes, because we all need someone to laugh at.

[@laurajarrell6187]

Alex, these bits are great. And, back when you were 17, I said you may be the Hitchens of our times! You put this even better than he. But the points are the same. 'Who would you put in charge of what you could hear?' I agree with you on, so far, everything I've heard you say. Lol, it's why I now am even finding subs for dairy and milk,(it's pretty easy, actually!) for my breads. I hadn't thought about that in 'vegan' as opposed to just stopping buying meat. 👍🥰🤎✌