***"OMG, YOU'RE FREAKIN' ME OUT BUMP"***
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.
Hi cyborg...I have never seen you call a FReeper a troll.
Well... I think that is more of a security issue. Actual danger is an exception to the rule, and there has to be a judgment call.
No but I confess to calling one or two a genius or dumbass :) Just part of being FRiends hehehehe
The benefit is that we don't have any really nasty flamewars. In general, I have found that Free Republic is really a very pleasant forum, compared with what you will find elsewhere. If we opened it up to the DU nutcases, that would no longer be the case.
On the other hand, the mods can be a little nuts sometime. People have been banned who should not have been banned. And sometimes stuff is removed that should not be removed. It's not a big deal really, if you don't mind just creating another account. You aren't going to keep getting banned unless you really are a troll. Quad meme, for some, it is quite a shame to lose an account they've had for a long time.
Ideally, Free Republic should consider reinstating old accounts after period of time (at least the ones which have been around awhile before they were banned--not the DU trolls) and maybe allow for some kind of appeals process. But, otherwise, I guess you just have to make a new account when you get struck down by a quirky mod.
I just got a pin in the mail from Bush/Cheney - - I'm a "Wrangler" !
True, there are security issues, as you noted in your Holmes quotation, but when a person with a pro-Bush sign is allowed up close while a person with an anti-Bush sign is relegated far away, it ceases to be a security issue.
I have to put up with these idiots in the media, in the workplace, in my in-laws. I don't feel the need to have to put up with their "honest" debate here on FR. So far as I can tell, honesty and the Dem Party are at cross purposes. Let the opposition twist their logic on other websites....
I disagree.
In a nutshell, we at FR do not support viewpoint discrimination.
Well, it depends on the situation.
Personally, I prefer open and unrestricted debate. But the decision is not mine to make.
***"OMG, YOU'RE FREAKIN' ME OUT BUMP"***
Funny you posted this, and right behind it was a troll posting that lasted less than 5 mins.
As always, I defer to he who hosts us all here.
It's true. But, I do believe if a leftie ever showed up who would argue from principle, and stay off ad hominem, he would be most welcome, as well as very busy.
I find nothing to quarrel with in what you have written. After all it is hard to argue with letting the best idea prevail in the marketplace of ideas.
But I do not find much there that advances my understanding of this troll business. You seem to limit the definition to assertion of facts which are false and to slanders. You assert these are not legally protected speech, a legal tenet with which I would quarrel.
First, my observation shows me that those who scream TROLL the loudest are themselves the most prone to descend to the ad hominem and indulge in libel. Second, who is to say which assertions are false? Is that not a matter for rebuttal and not shunning unto outer darkness of the poster who tresspasses on our peculiar conservative brand of PC?
Finally, I have observed that troll alerts are not reserved for intentionally deceptive or libelous utterances but all to often are in fact motivated for "viewpoint descrimination" which we all say we abhor but which is clearly all too prevalent in practice.
I commend you for addressing this important issue to the future of FreeRepublic.
Sorry pal, I'm not going to waste my time or resources on America hating trolls. If you want to debate these guys, do it on DU or LP or wherever.
I don't believe anyone should be arrested for a sign with four letters on it but I can understand why there are 'Secret service protest zones". Security. Half of this country despises Bush and his administration for that matter. Even when Martha Burke protested the Masters golf tourny, they made her stay a good distance away. If the W.T.O. protests that usually turn violent are any indication of what our elected officials might face, then I say keep 'em atleast a few blocks away.
In no way was I implying that the First Amendment applies here -- nor would I insinuate that there is even remotely anything resembling state action :)
However, do see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins.
True, it is a conservative forum, and the owner of the website has the right to do whatever he wants. However if my comments were removed, t would be proper to provide an explanation (too inflammatory, too liberal, etc).
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.