Posted on 05/16/2004 12:59:53 PM PDT by jmstein7
There is now a debate raging on FR about trolls, honest dissent, and the value of free speech. I would like to weigh in on this and then solicit opinions from all of you on the subject.
The First Amendment was a response to the English experience of viewpoint suppression by requiring licensing of the press – i.e. requiring pre-approval of books – the doctrine of construction treason, which held that writing can constitute treason, a capital offense, and the law of seditious libel, criminalizing unfavorable reporting of the government. However, the debate in the United States did not truly reach maturity until the early half of the 20th Century.
Justice Holmes (in, I believe, Abrams v. United States) famously averred that “[t]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Even opinions which we “loathe and believe to be fraught with death” should not be suppressed, “unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Alternatively, the self governance rationale posits that, because the general welfare depends on the citizens making enlightened decisions, in a democratic society, free expression and discussion are essential to deciding matters of public policy. The autonomy rationale holds that for an individual to regard himself as autonomous, he must see himself as free to decide which beliefs to hold. The First Amendment is also justified on the basis that it checks the abuse of power by public officials, it diffuses dissent by creating an atmosphere of open discussion, and it fosters a tolerant society.
I am inclined to agree with Justice Holmes – and that is why I support, as I think most FReepers do – honest dissent. Although such expression of opinion may make us angry, as the Court insinuated in Terminiello v. Chicago, the most valuable expression may well be that which because it is provocative and challenging, produces these emotions. This type of debate aids us in our perpetual search for the truth.
There is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. However, what we are concerned with is false statement of fact – this type of speech, particularly speech that is intended to be deceptive, adds nothing to public debate. False statements of fact, e.g. intentionally deceptive or libelous utterances, are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Deceptive or defamatory speech is “low value speech,” and it adds nothing constructive to the marketplace of ideas. This is why trolls are prohibited – because they add nothing to the debate and exist only to deceive and distort the truth we are seeking.
In a nutshell, we at FR do not support viewpoint discrimination. However, what we do ask for, at a minimum, is open and honest debate as we, together search for the truth. That is, per se, the value of free speech in a Free Republic.
Jim's site, Jim's rules. And the success of this site support the idea that Jim's rules work pretty well. If Jim wanted input from forum members about his troll policy, he would solicit it.
I am one of the kinda sorta maybe 'non-conservatives' here. I have not, to my knowledge anyway, been called a troll nor banned. I have had disagreements on some threads, and offered a different perspective on others.
As an example of my difference, I am an atheist. I have a political philosophy that derives from a different place than the traditional definition of conservative. However, I find that my political philosophy lands me in agreement with most conservatives on most topics. Fairly often however, my justification for the position is very different. This has lead to several interesting discussions.
Despite my differences from the majority here, I have found this site very welcoming. It does have occasional spirited debates but the thing that brings me back is the sense of community of like ideas. Even as different as mine are from most here, it is a welcome respite from monotonous leftist drone of major media and my local community. (I managed to escape NYC...into NJ. It didn't help.)
I offer this to perhaps change the opinion of most here...this community is not nearly so closed to different ideas as some would suggest. Jim's rules are straightforward and obvious. Those who obey them are warmly welcomed. Good discussions of worthwhile ideas take place all the time...even with people who are not true conservatives.
There are other conservative sites to visit...They allow libs..and have the gift.
"I'm not going to waste my time or resources on America hating trolls"
I have a question for my first post.
Does thinking that the President (whoever that may be at the time, Clinton, Bush, whatever...) is doing a poor job and leading the country in the wrong direction equate with "hating America"? When this forum was used primarily in opposition to the Admin. as opposed to the current support of the Admin., was that "America hating" or was that honest, passionate disagreement with the policies of the gov't?
I have no problem with dissent.
I only get cranky when said dissent crosses the line into sedition in the advancement of treason. One is typically hard-pressed to find any argument from the Left that doesn't entail that.
When you share computers and people get the bug, hard to NOT use the same computer. I suggest a grant program so we can be given money by you and others to buy another computer. LOL.
Thanks. I missed it.
really, gee thanx for the info. I thought there was only 1 such site.
Even absent name-calling, tedious folks who don't know the difference between opinion and reasoned argument are a waste of time.
As are those whose sole ability is criticism without the slightest clue as to any substitute real solutions.
"FUGW" is not debate. I doubt threatening language was what the Framers had in mind when penning the First Amendment.
That being said, I do support the banning of very Liberal posters from FR, because otherwise, the site would be overrun with Liberal posters, which would defeat the site's primary purpose: (to be) A grassroots Conservative forum.
The right to free association, especially on private property, is an important one.
you're 116 is so off the content of the thread I was mentioning. We were having a discussion about banning. I gave an example to show my point. I did not nor will I use this thread to discuss Bush or Clinton investigations.
I disagreed that anyone who criticized Bush should be banned..We have many who have disagreements about one thing or another that support the President...
We have been asked not to promote another candidate. There are two viable candidates, Kerry or Bush...
Isn't a "troll" anyone with whom a poster disagrees?
Are you a little testy today Jim?
Thanks for the great site. I say why give the trolls a voice they have one over at D.U. We really don't need the infiltration.Its bad enough some lay in wait for months before showing who they really are.
RB
NO!..and sometimes they are stealthy,talk the talk and then gradually start undermining, contradicting what they said they thought about a point last month..
You go back and say..hmm and then they go away and suddenly they come back and blast away at Bush or the conservatives or the war or whatever. Some do it as a form of entertainment,seeing how long they can play.
I've been lurking and posting at FR since early 1998. I've never hit the abuse button. Though I dissent on major conservative issues such as abortion and religion, I have never had problems from JimRob.
I liked early FR better than now because there was no moderator...Freepers took care of sorting out the trolls and disruptors. It was a creative and hilarious endeavor. I felt freer to say what I think than I do now. Partly that's because we were against Clinton. Now we have issues with President Bush that we can't come to a consensus on. So it seems to fracture us rather than unite us.
I dislike having moderators because their version of "honesty" seems pretty subjective at times. I miss a lot of the early folks who got banned. Oh well. I keep to one rule myself: avoid making ad hominem attacks by sticking to the facts, not feelings. That's why I've never had the abuse button thrown at me and why I'm still here though I've been attacked plenty by the so-called "honest" Christian folks.
Thanks to Jim and John for making this place run year after year.
Protest Zones are a required due to the risk of assassination.
The anti Free Trade protesters are well known for near riots and violence agains the police and civilians.
The antiwar protesters are loaded with Palestenians and other Islamists. We know all to well the tendancy of these folks to resort to violence against the unarmed.
The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard.
If the system was so good, why were moderators put in the first place?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.