MoJo!! 
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.
Any thoughts on this subject? I think I've been doing too much con law :)
You've been doing much con law :)
While Justice Holmes makes me shiver at times, I think he is right here.
Uh..... turn down your font???? is that the answer..?
I'm sorry, I mean, "What is 'turn down your font'?
;-)
I agree that FR is simply looking for honest and open debate.
You probably should have used a large font for a discussion of this level of importance.
Yes, you *have* been doing too much con law - LOL! :-)
Your "nutshell" summation says it all. It's healthy and refreshing to be able to debate, in a civilized manner, honest, opposing points of view.
Too many times, those with opposing views have been unfairly called "trolls" - I have seen it happen to longtime members and it is very disheartening.
I support the removal of Trolls and the like when they do the following:
1)Openly support the killing of our Troops
2)Openly support the overthrowing of our government. (If ya don't like something, get off your butt and vote!)
3)Openly give aid and comfort to our enemies
4)Openly support the killing of our President or any government officials.
There is nothing wrong with dissent. I actually enjoy the debates when it doesn't come down to name calling. Unfortunately, it usually does.
In my home...my guests must adhere to my rules. That includes keeping their language clean and not being disruptive to the moral upbringing of my children.
In Jim Robinson's home (Free Republic) I feel the same rules apply. He alone has the right to say what is allowed in his home, and we must respect that or leave!!
Factual vigorous debate and discussion is welcome here. Ad hominem or dishonesty is not.
To identify a troll sounds more art than science.
It does seem to me, however, that a conservative web site would be justified in stating that liberal ideas, in general, had been rejected and are not part of the desired debate. It seems fair to send advocates of these ideas on to sites that welcome them. It seems fair to confine the debate within certain parameters desired by the founder of the site.
I wasn't sure what the response would be when I first posted here after lurking for a while. The views expressed here are quite often contrary to my own. I expected to be ignored, scorned or even blacklisted. Yet some people had thoughtful replies to my comments. Thank you for that.
But it seems that the First Amendment is being ignored in the United States. The Secret Service has "protest zones" set up far away from the President. A man was arrested for having a "F U G W" sign. The mentality of "you are with us or you are against us" so prevelant nowadays stifles open debate.
Comments, anyone else?
I've never called a fellow freeper a troll. The only folks I call trolls are the coconuts who sign up the same day or lurked for five years without a single post. Dissenters are here, and I don't see what the fuss is. Law and order is good thing, esp. in a forum visited by the media.
I've noted that we can dissent on some things but not on others.
I know that I've been called an idiot for expressing the opinion that perhaps we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
I haven't called others an idiot, and there are plenty of well known conservatives that agree with this position, but I've suffered abuse for it.
MoJo!!
Yeah. What's the deal with the font size? It's irritating.
It seems clear Boxsmith13 and FA14 were both banned - yet never suggested killing of our troops, overthrowing the government - hell, I know a recent person on the freep who is a BUSH TEAM LEADER that was banned (now how silly is that).
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.