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.

This is still the regulatory burden placed upon UK media; check how often 'news' stories about governmental activities contain the phrase "... it can now be revealed ...". The famous Peter Zenger case that was the forerunner to our freedom of expression both for and against governmental activities was a direct slap in the faces of the Governor and his Judges by virtue of the jury declaring that the law was wrong and therefor held no power.

If you have any doubt that we have come almost full circle back to that situation, I suggest you delve into the WP/LAT suit against Jim and FR, and see just how much freedom we have lost to debate the political questions of the day.

Hope all your marks are 99%. [One always needs to realise they can do better!] ;^)

This is not Jim Rob's home, however. Free Republic is a wonderful thing, it's gotten bigger than one person's personal website. This more like Jim Rob's Debating Society.

No. I think you're wrong about this. Free Republic certainly has grown to be a highly significant site on the web, but the driving force behind it, and the guiding element that still directs it is largely the person of Jim Robinson.

Now, in that capacity, Jim Rob could conduct himself like an oriental potentate, banning anyone who so much voiced a whisper of dissent. I have never known this to be the case in the almost three years I've been a part of this site.

It's been put forth in this thread that FR is a genteel environment where like-minded individuals engage in political and social discourse. That's certainly true. It's also true that there have been many passionate debates, with heated disagreements, accusations flying all over the place, that have gone on for days. And I have never known anyone to get banned for engaging in such discussions.

I have observed posters getting banned for ongoing ad hominem attacks, continual foul language, personal threats, and incendiary bomb throwing that has nothing to do with the debate of any issue in question.

I call that sound management.

he's built a public space that anyone browsing the net can amble into, that hundreds of folks post to every day. Lots of people now chip in money to support this internet Debating Society.

Public in the sense that anyone can surf on in, browse the site, register, and participate (provided they adhere to the guidelines posted on the home page). Nobody has a God-given right to post on FR. We're still in the realm of privilege here. All of us.

As for donations, when the fundraising drives come up, I take that to mean FR is looking for contributors, not investors.

If I get a solicitation from and organization, and I like them, I write them a check. And that's where my influence ends. They spend the money as they see fit. If I don't like the way that organization is run, I don't write them any more checks. My name on the check does not entitle me to a seat on the board of directors.

Let's face it, this is a conservative site. Conservatives participate here. Liberals venture in at their peril. And they can expect to be challenged. There's plenty of divergent views on FR without indulging liberal flamethrowers, wherever they come from. And IMHO the mods do a good job of policing the site in this capacity without stifling open debate.

Closing our borders to trade would result in massive inflation and unemployment

Whoa, drop anchor. Nobody said anything about closing boarders to trade. Zip, zilch, nix, nada. So until you can tell me where that came in from, I'll suspend discussion on this point. This is something that seems to be coming out of a set of talking points and thre is no foundation for it; so, I'll ask you for some foundation and then we can move on.

NAFTA did not destroy your job, but indeed it has provided jobs for millions of Americans.

That remains to be seen. As for my job specifically - I sit on a non-leveraged desk running at a pay per seat rate. If it were not for outsourcing, I would still have a job after November of this year. The guy that negotiated our contract came in and gave us a free shot at him a week ago and apologized for the company. He fought pretty hard to keep our jobs but in the end, competition with other US firms that had already outsourced put them in a position where the customer said either outsource or you won't have a contract. Period. So, yes, Nafta and free trade are directly responsible for it. I suppose I could have provided those details up front; but, doing so would not tell me if you're reading off the standard talking points or just generally trying to deny any connection by trying to generically explain it away.

Tell me, if I hang a tub of water over my head with a plug in it to keep the water in and the water does stay in while the plug is in place. If I then remove the plug and get drenched, who's fault is it. Or did it just happen..

The biggest pressure on jobs today is not competition but technology, which has greatly reduced the number of necessary persons for almost any task related to the production of goods and services.

That's nice and all; but, you were explaining how MY job was affected by this with no real background on what my job is or how the contract defined it. Unfortuneatly you're wrong. My job is pay per seat. Meaning the client got what service level they were willing to pay for. Agents have so much time in a day to handle incoming cases and there are only so many calls that can be taken in a day depending on several factors - not the least of which is the system employed for documenting the calls. When you have the best stats of any desk in your company and happen to be the in one of the best IT companies going, it isn't an issue with productivity. It's all money. And as it happens, that's exactly what the company rep told us. Bottom line is, if they can outsource the best helpdesk in the company, Every helpdesk in the company can be outsourced - all of them. And with competition what it is - that is the way it will ultimately go - because they won't have any choice - they will have to hand all our jobs to foriegners or close their doors. And the foreigners are saying do it or else. Do it or else. That is specifically coming from India. And it's on the record in congress in the h1 and L1 hearings.

I'm sorry; but, what you are saying doesn't line up with the reality. Are you reading from talking points? Seriously. because this is the standard spiel we here on one thread after another and it doesn't look anything like the reality any of us being replaced is facing. It does sound like the company line invented to keep a lid on things so they can get by with it.

In areas where large numbers of persons are still required to produce a product or perform a service, it makes no sense to pay anything but the lowest possible wage.

I'd generally agree; but, if you're an American company doing business in America serving an American client, the ethics of putting Americans out of work to go do a job in another country for higher profit aren't real sound.. which perhaps explains why employers are hiding behind the word "productivity" when productivity has nothing to do with it - it's about cost of the workforce, regulation, taxation, etc. The companies want US profits; but, don't want to play by US rules to get them. Thus, free trade. Free trade lets them go back to indebting people to the company store as is happening in China. If it were about productivity, they should be paying the exact same wages I get here to those overseas because the productivity is better. In fact the productivity is worse; but, they can charge the same rates to companies here that they currently get and reap greater profit from each person while paying them nothing. In the china example, the only thing that seperates the workers from slaves is the fact that they have a paycheck that serves as the shackles. But hey, they get the American profits so it must be ok. Americans got put out of 30k+ a year jobs so that these people could be paid 600 dollars a year to do the same job because the workers work for the government of China - not the company - and can thusly be forced to do so. With the vast amounts the government is getting per person, they give 600 a month and by all reports are one or more months behind in providing it, meaning they have to live on loan from the business itself - eeking out a squaler type living while the government gets fat. Sounds kinda familiar - similar to circumstances in a country we just liberated. But I digress.

In your opinion, why is it, do you think, that the rhetoric doesn't match the facts on the ground. Could it be this is what we're intended to hear and buy into so we don't do something rash? Just a question; but, a really good one don't ya think ;)

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.