Trolls, Honest Dissenters, And The Marketplace of Ideas in a Free Republic

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 20^th 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.

My take on the accuracy of that? Well, I'll tell you this much, it fits the constant attacks and maltreatment everyone else gets. So I'll tell you what I've said.

My position is that outsourcing is a result of free trade and Nafta. Nafta and the concept of free trade were pushed through and supported under Clinton and are supported by Bush. Therefore it is Bush's policy. My job is being outsourced by the end of this calendar year because competition forced my employer's hand. Other companies have already outsourced as a result of this policy and have put pretty massive pressure on the rest of the industry to oursource themselves or lose contracts to those that have.
The policy is the jumping off point that made it possible. Therefore I do put responsiblility for this squarely where it lies, with the Presidents who have supported it and the congress who put nafta on their desk. To that extent, Bush is in part responsible for people losing their jobs to outsourcing.

If you don't say every bit of that in precise detail, the retort from others is that I said Bush came and fired me or some stupid silly thing like that. I'm losing my job because labor in Mexico can be had for a fraction of what is paid here. The difference in per-seat cost is staggering.

Further more, I didn't ever say that Bush is supposed to tear up charters of corporations or he isn't a real conservative. I don't know who your source is; but, they need to get their facts straight. Nor have I said that people who disagree with me are Bushbots. I have said that people who twist what I say and try to argue something other than what I say because they cannot or will not debate what I actually say are like Bush Cultists. I love Bush for the most part. I just happen to disagree with him on immigration as most here do, and on free trade - as those do publicly who don't mind being maligned endlessly for it, lied about, talked deceitfully about ect.

Someone asked me what I would personally do to fix things in doing away with free trade. In the heat of things, I responded that I personally would revoke it, put the tarrif system back in place that built us into the power we have been, level the playing field again so that Americans aren't competing for their jobs against 50cent a day wages in china as though Americans could live on 50cents a day or an hour as is the larger case. This is an issue free traders run away from in swarms. Not one person can address it because it betrays the vacancy of their claim that it is free and fair. Can you yourself live on 50cents an hour. If you can't, then explain how it is fair to force America to compete with that when we don't have to.

Oh, so nobody can claim I dodged the point. In context, most want to argue that the jobs going overseas don't belong to us. So I noted sarcastically that in killing free trade, I would also deal with the incentive system and would include the notion that if Industry wanted to make American profits but couldn't live within supply and demand in our system, then I'd tear up their articles of incorporation and revoke their business licenses. If Americans have no right to their jobs, The businesses can't claim to have a right to their licenses.

Thanks for actually asking what I said. I think I've been clear; but, if not, just let me know. I have been looking for another comparable job trying to work within my physical restrictions because I am handicapped in the sense that I can't drive a car. Try to imagine how limiting that can be and you may have some appreciation for what it means in the larger picture. Not impossible; but certainly restrictive.
Everything I said at the time was twisted. I'm losing my job because - at the root - of a policy decision. Because I complained about it, I'm doing nothing to prepare for the eventuality, it's my fault I'm getting fired, I must be a worthless employee because I'm losing my job, etc. The charges and the attrociousness of them are endless.

My job is gone. I'm dealing with it. But I don't think it's right so I'm debating, discussing and trying to change it so that more people aren't hurt by it in the long run.
For that I have been dubbed every kind of vile thing. And your quotation or paraphrase is just another example of the twisting of words employed to make me into something I'm not because I happen to disagree. I'm not alone.

The fact that her post was so obviously zotworthy by most of those who read it (and a slippery anti-Bush post at that), indicates that you're the one from Rio Linda. I'll stake my credibility on this forum against yours any day of the week.

You said:

There is nothing in her post that leads one to believe anything other than she wante to vent a complaint on a valid topic.

Many folks on this forum found plenty in her post to suspect her motives. In fact, some of us found her post to be so obviously insincere that an inability to recognize that seemed incredible. But these opinions aren't valid to you because they don't match your opinions. No, for disagreeing with you about the purpose of her post, we are compared with jackasses and our reactions are compared to those of nazis.

You also continue to complain about people pointing out her spelling mistakes. She's looking for a job...in education...her spelling is extraordinarily relevant. Since you're looking for work as well, your spelling is equally relevant. That's not a personal attack, that's an effort to point out that a skills-update might be in order. Bad spelling is not Bush's fault, nor is it the fault of outsourcing, by the way.

On the other hand, you castigate me about poor debate skills, yet it seems those who don't agree with you are always asses or jackasses? Why is that? Why do you react with such severe resentment to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you?

'Tammy' posted that "I have sent my resume and a cover letter to bush three times and have gotten no response." What should Bush's response be? Why is it his duty to find her a job?

And why do you keep asking for proof that her post is not genuine? Are we not free to read her post and make our own judgment about her sincerity, even if that judgment disagrees with yours?

In short, what does the world owe you, and how much time do we have to arrange to provide your due?

All I'm asking is the proof for the claim you make in excusing pretty foul behavior. And you don't seem capable of giving it.

Ok. I'll use real small words this time.

This is a site accessible to any nut who wishes to join. Some (surprise!) make up stuff in order to justify ensuing leftist propaganda; like "daddy government owes me".

I don't have to prove anything to you or any other presumptuous delusional control freak.

This is not a court of law, and some of us have the knowledge and experience to infer rather quickly when someone is yanking our chain. If you are unable to do so is sad. Deal with it.

Trolls and baiters do not all attach signed confessions and wear a sign around their neck. If that is your level of competence I am sorry.
Have a nice day.

Why on earth do you say that. On the contrary, I love FR and even have a nice link to it from my website along with one for Foxnews and some derisive commentary about ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN.
I don't think I've said anything to the effect that I don't like FR. Nor have I ever. But I have noted that I've taken a pretty good beating by people from here that lied about me, deceitfully twisted my words, abused me based on their assumptions, etc - just like was done to tammi but arguably worse. I'm just tired of the foulness and tired of the public seeing this foulness as a representation to America of what I am. I don't beat up on people for sport. I don't gag them if I disagree with them. I don't abuse them for disagreeing. That isn't what the republican party or conservatism is about and it has no place here in my estimation. I don't think that can be construed into saying I don't like FR. If I felt that way I'd just leave. I happen to love FR and appreciate Mr. Robinson greatly for what he's done and I want to make it better because we can do better in representing what Mr. Robinson put together.
And having a handicap myself, he's something of a hero in what he's accomplished - someone to look up to for an example of what can be done dispite limitations. Making it more curious to me as to how people here can savage a handicapped person and belittle their limitations as though they meant nothing. But that's another debate.

But I don't think it's right so I'm debating, discussing and trying to change it so that more people aren't hurt by it in the long run.

Has nothing to do with right or wrong. it is just a fact of life and change.

Deal with it, as every generation has had to do. especially those born since the 40s who have born the brunt of so much and so fast a pace of changes in economics.

I have have had three or four careers myself or so. All different and all given up due to market dynamics.

You cannot stop global trade and free enterprise solutions to profit margins. You roll with it or employ yourself!

There is a current glut of people in IT. Everyone needs to know IT now. The specialty jobs are limited and the field has matured. So what!

TV's no longer need tubes(what I started doing years ago) and we no longer make textiles(what I did later on).

Real estate Brokers all became part time..(what I did in the 70s) Radio stations became automated(what I did after real estate) And construction needs a thriving economy.(what I did in the early 90s)

I then became self employed and always will be.

Wrong? Right?................No, just the way it is!

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.