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.
There is much less "we" at FreeRepublic than your prose promises, I think.
Without the contrarians and the iconoclasts, this place would be damn boring.
I can tell you one reason..FR just got too large to self police...
Sorry I didn't end with the < /sarcasm tag. > I though it obvious.
bump
A criticism of one or more of Bush's policies doesn't equate to an endorsement of Kerry. Especially if the criticism is because the policy is too far to the left.
I actually some mouthbreather accuse me of being a troll because I had a problem with the latest spending bill. AIDS in Africa and all that liberal nonsense. Same with the Kennedy education bill, or the prescription drug bill.
Now that's just stupid. If someone can't tell the difference between honest debate and troll activity, they should go watch Larry King-- that's about their speed.
I figured that was the reason.
Well, I didn't care much for that thread either.
I'm going home.
Larry King is nursing home speed.
My two cents is that I don't like it when someone who has an opinion different from everyone else is called names because of it. First: it isn't civil, mature or constructive, second: how the heck do we ever convince anyone we're right, if we exclude everyone who's mind should be changed?
I agree that the ones who sign up and on the same day start ranting against Bush should probably get banned.
boxsmith13's opinion, earlier, was that Bush is gonna' get creamed this November. Lots of people didn't like it. That alone, however, doesn't make him a "troll." Something else might. But, not that alone.
As for me? I'm a long-time FReeper and I'll go so far as to say that if things get any worse, perspective-wise, in the presentation of the Bush campaign for reelection--for very much longer--we WILL be looking at a John Kerry win. The only guard against this would be Kerry's apparent ineptitude. But, we also shouldn't unestimate the guy. Historically, incumbants either lose or win big. Harry Truman and Gerald Ford would be the only examples against this theory in recent history, and they were "incumbants" only because of their circumstances. And, yes, I voted for Bush last time out... and, no, I'm not a "troll."
If someone has a different opinion and is civil about presenting it, why not let them stay and join the debate? We are witty enough here not to resort to name-calling... aren't we?
Re #73, did bogdanpolska get the ax?
Too bad there are so many self-anointed troll police who can't tell the difference. I usually have to spend time educating their lack of perception. Then they only cautiously forgive me. The funny thing is, I'm farther to the right than they are, usually!
As I say..its always one thing or another! I haven't yet voted for a perfect candidate.
We are in perilous times and I feel the need to strongly support Bush because of the alternative!.
We now know the answer - first used tagline at 1:24:33, banned at 1:25:29, total of 56 seconds.
Don't let the door hit you in the a-- on the way out.
Can one ever fully overcome the damage of that accusation?
How can we ever be sure of you again? ;o)
yup
In MSIE just go to view and choose a larger text size.
I have more than once made a honest debate reply to a troll, only to find out that he/she got nuked.
I will continue to do so, as long as there is a breath in me, but I will not be critical of the mods who keep riff and raff off the forum to prevent threads from becoming war zones. It is a difficult cal, and they often have information that I don't in making that decision.
All that being said, I am sure that a mistake is made from time to time, but it is a honest mistake. I would not want that job, but someone has to do it.
That's about it.
Oh yes. He was a thorough fraud.
Yeah, what you said!
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.