If there was ever a case for limiting free speech....

Source: Wikimedia Commons . Rich communication is surely a capacity of humans that has allowed them to become the preeminent species on ...

Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Rich communication is surely a capacity of humans that has allowed them to become the preeminent species on this planet.  Protecting our ability to communicate openly and safely is therefore a marker of a successful society. That's why "freedom of speech" is considered so important to so many people.

But when free speech undermines the well-being of a society, then that speech must be tempered.  Some speech is very obviously forbidden: slander, libel, various kinds of "hate speech," and so on.  Free speech is not unfettered even in the most open societies.

The real question isn't whether some speech acts are to be forbidden, but rather which acts are to be forbidden.

Here's one easy case: demonstrably intentional lies.

And here's an excellent example: a revolting screed of pseudo-scientific putrefaction and outright lies.  The so-called article is dressed up like a medical article and claims that herd immunity from vaccination isn't real.  The article is so utterly wrong, so egregiously fake, that there is only one possible explanation: that in spite of the truth - the readily available, exquisitely researched, and eminently well-explained truth - the author of this post actually intends to cause harm.  I suppose there is some possibility that the author is mentally ill, but that would be up to medical experts to determine.  And whether the author is sane or a complete whack-job in no way diminishes the harm caused by the article.

People will read this article, and people will believe it.  Its falsehoods will spread like a disease, infecting the thoughts of more and more people.  It will be recycled and referenced, cited and spread in different forms but always with the same deadly message.

It will taint people's beliefs. Beliefs inform action.  A false belief will eventually lead to a harmful action.  There is no question that, if left unchecked, such disgusting ideas will cause harm and even death.

Furthermore, these lies are tarted up to appear as legitimate articles reporting statements by experts.  This blatant misrepresentation is a further deception which to a segment of the population will give the sense of a lack of scientific consensus. This undermines the public trust in a society's institutions.  Especially in the case of the health care system, this will undoubtedly lead to even more suffering and death.

Conversely, the systemic benefits to both society and individual that would accrue by eliminating these kinds of lies are substantive, pervasive, and long-term.

How might we decide what kind of statements are to be excluded from free speech protection? It shouldn't be too difficult.  Some criteria would include:

  • a demonstrated opportunity to access accurate information from reliable sources;
  • a demonstrable capacity to understand the information;
  • a pattern of having been informed of erroneous utterances yet continuing to make those utterances;
  • and several others I've not yet thought of.
Is this censorship?  Yes, it is.  So what?  We censor ourselves all the time.  We do so because of the social and personal benefits that accrue.  There's nothing wrong with that, so long as those benefits continue to accrue.  Censorship becomes malevolent only when it undermines those benefits.

A society is more than just a collection of individuals.  A society is a system, with emergent properties that feed back to those individuals in closed loops.  What benefits individuals can benefit society and vice versa, but only when the full systemic implications of that feedback is acknowledged and understood.  So self-censorship is not enough, because self-censorship cannot account for those feedback loops.

Thus, it becomes necessary - for everyone's benefit - to create dampening feedback loops that prevent errors from propagating within the system in ways no single individual can foresee and control on their own.  One of those dampening feedback loops is created by carefully limiting the extent of free speech by recognizing the responsibility of having such freedom, and by ensuring appropriate consequences are imposed on the abuse of that freedom.

And that's why demonstrably intentional lies must be excluded from free speech protection.



academia activism adaptation admin aesthetics affect ageing AI analogy android anthropology anticipation app architecture art arts Asia assistive technology automobile balance biology biomimetics book branding building built environment business CAD Canada care case cfp change revision children codesign cognition collaboration colonization commercialization commonplacing communication design competition complexity computation computer science computing concept map conference constructivism conversational analysis craft creative arts creativity CSCW culture cybernetics degrowth dementia design design thinking digital digital media digital reproduction digital scholarship disability dissertation drawing economics education effectiveness efficiency emotion engineering environment ergonomics ethics ethnography Evernote evolution exhibition exoskeleton experience experimental studies fail fashion featured film food function modeling futurism gender studies Germany globalization grantsmanship graphic design Greece HCI health heritage history housing human factors humanism identity image inclusivity industrial design informatics information innovation interaction interdisciplinarity interior design internet of things intervention iphone journal journalism language law library life life cycle lifehack literature review logistics luxury making management manufacturing material culture materials mechanics media method migration mobile motion design movie nature new product development Nexus 6 olfaction online organization packaging paper participatory design PBL pengate performance PhD philosophy planning policy politics practice predatory preservation prison proceedings productivity project management public space publishing reading Remember The Milk reproduction research resource-limited design reuse review Samsung scholarship science science fiction semiotics senses service design simplicity society sociology software space strategic design student sustainability systems tactile tangibility technology textile theatre theory Toodledo Toronto tourism traffic transhumanism transnationalism transportation tv uncertainty universal design urban usa usability user experience visualization wearable well-being women workshop writing
The Trouble with Normal...: If there was ever a case for limiting free speech....
If there was ever a case for limiting free speech....
The Trouble with Normal...
Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS CONTENT IS PREMIUM Please share to unlock Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy