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.
rofl, Stephen Hawking has a known disability. Tell us, did this person have a bad night, was she tired as heck when she wrote her post. Is she Dyslexic. Hmmm. But we can extrapolate that she has no skills because of your assumptions and your sure judgement just like one can extrapolate from a resume that she's not even an IT student.. Gee, I'd like to have your intuition because right now, you seem superhuman.
I have a friend on this site that posted an article with attrocious spelling errors earlier tonight and that was incoherent. She's smart, Her point was deriveable; but, it was still incoherent. It was a post on Democracy and religion which she asked me to critique - unfortuneatly after she posted it. My knowing what she meant didn't matter. People were not as brutal as I expected but she did get beat up a little, though I haven't checked it In a while. I'm sure she's probably been pretty thoroughly brutalized over it by now. I could still tell her it needed work without having to brutalize her. She just seems to have rushed through her thoughts to get them posted and didn't do well with spelling or construction of her thoughts. It was a big hunk to bite off without a lot of thought and I told her so. She isn't the best speller; but, she is tackling a big issue and has a pretty good bead on it. She just wasn't good in expressing it coherently.
So do we discount her as some hapless idiot, or do we seek clarification so we can understand he point she was trying to get accross and maybe stimulate some debate or, God forbid, learn something.
I value self-improvement; but, I don't believe self-improvement necessarily requires a College degree. Nor do I make rash judgements based on an informal chat session in an internet chat room. And given that she didn't post a resume or come here for an interview; but, to try to put a grievance into words... I really don't put much stock in your personal opinion of a person based on a single thread and no background. Very presumptuous. How about if we picked the worst posting you've ever made and judge your entire life based on it. I'm sure you have never screwed up a post in your life. God knows I have in my time and I'll do it again. Based on your presumption, I should be a poor quality worker with no redeeming value. On the other hand, I've never had to ask for a raise at my current job in an environment where it is rare to get one at all, much less two in four years based on performance - and bonuses on top of that. Even got my anual reviews in writing and signed by my bosses. Stellar performance. But hey, what does the truth matter - we have your far reaching intuition..
Yes, he works for the little guy! I was saving that for later! LOL!
SpottedOwl said: "My kids spelling skills, no matter how much I work with them, are pitifull."
LOL! (er, that is pitiful.)
Nah, if that were the case we wouldnt be shooting the breeze in this thread now, would we?
I'll stand with everyone else here on Free Republic who drew the same conclusion as I did. By your words, we're all quite presumptuous, while you are the very soul of patient discernment.
Also, you said this:
Tell us, did this person have a bad night, was she tired as heck when she wrote her post. Is she Dyslexic. Hmmm. But we can extrapolate that she has no skills because of your assumptions and your sure judgement just like one can extrapolate from a resume that she's not even an IT student..
If I were going to address a large group of people I did not know (and who didn't know me), I'd do everything I could to make that first address as perfect as I could. I did not say she had 'no skills,' that was very decietful of you. I will trust my own judgment even as I try to improve it. You can do what you want.
I will point out that I did not 'extrapolate from a resume that she's not even an IT student' because (a) I did not see her resume and (b) she identified her degree.
Finally, you really need to stop calling people liars unless you are able to identify their lies.
Do you mean to suggest that Havoc is being downsized by H. Ross Perot? That is rich.
Pity Party at Havos place, BYOB or go thirsty...
Time for some Tough Love
Havos = Havoc's
Believe me, I don't want any libs trolling here at all. But, as a Constitutional matter, I should clear this one thing up. FR has every right to exclude anyone from the forum. In Boyscouts of America v. Dale, the court clearly held that the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the groups freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way, the groups ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.
Clearly FR is a private forum, and clearly the forced inclusion of libs in our forum would burden our right to fight to keep our country a Free Republic.
So, to reiterate, my entire point was to defend Jim from criticism.
Absolutely! The giant sucking sound!
I understood you quite well, as did many others.
But, I got your point.
I find it very hard to believe she has a Master's degree. I have two and if I my spelling was bad as her's I would have none.
I don't see how she could possibly be a conservative. She was depending upon the government to help her instead of standing on her own two feet.
I am sorry your are losing your job. My son was out of work for about a year, but he did not blame the government, the President or Nafta.
It seems to me that if we argue that competition is fair in the US, then it is fair world wide. I have no intention in debating you on the subject, so I will not reply to any argument you make. I am simply making my view known.
I would have pressed the abuse button for her post myself.
Phew! Thanks, guys. I'm glad SOME people "got it." You know, I've never been flamed here before.
Let me be the first to tell you just how much you suck! You SUCK!!!
;O)
Yeah... on second read, it is a bit ambiguous. I should have made that tighter.
Thanks, PD. I wish I could have said it as well as you did.
LOL! Blame the proof reader!
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.