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.

I'm with you on this. We can have a difference of opinion, but it's the open honest debate of those opposing views within a conservative forum and perspective that "makes" FreeRepublic.

It's what brought many of us here.

Just yesterday we were having a similar discussion of this topic here on this thread.The Anti-Bush Crowd on Free Republic.

Ping...thought you guys might want to get a word in on this. There seems to be a great numbers of us who are looking for more content beyond my own standard wise-ass remarks. While that's half the fun, serious discourse of conservative issues and intellectual commentary is really waht makes this forum "home" for us. That, plus roasting virtual marshmallows over the latest ZOT! makes me all warm and fuzzy inside (or did I spill coffee on the surge protector again? D*mn!...)

It's not really a debating society. Intelligent discussion is helpful, and a certain amount of reasonable disagreement is helpful. But for the most part that ought to be among the different conservative positions. For instance, are Libertarians willing to recognize that they may want to support pro-life, anti-drug conservative politicians because these politicians will give them much more of what they value than pro-abort, pro-drug liberal politicians? Are pro-lifers willing to give a little in order to avoid losing even more? And so forth.

There are many kinds of conservatism, and many opinions as to how these kinds can be realized in practice.

But too much ultra-liberal opinion, even if politely worded, is a waste of bandwidth, both on the server and in our brains. Discussion between extreme liberals and extreme conservatives, except in moderation, would best be conducted somewhere else.

Finally, the forum is private, and the moderators need to use their best judgments. If we disagree on particular issues, we can raise the question.

Well, a very concise, interesting and LARGE post...however;

For me, FR is the one place I can come where I DON'T get barraged with the "liberal opinion". They control almost every facet of our daily lives, sponsoring such atrocoties as Political Correctness, Bush Bashing, Abortion, just to name a few.

Thus, I - for one - don't come here looking for "THEIR VIEWPOINT"...I already KNOW their viewpoint...it comes to us from radio, TV, movies, magazines, PACs, you name it...and I don't believe that FR is the place for it.

I come here to here the viewpoints of others regarding what is happening in the world, not for still another liberal sales pitch. Those who have values are not interested in the rantings of morally devoid individual whose only interests center on power and perversion.

So, I guess I vote "no" to allowing the "marketplace of ideas" to flourish, as I know what it will turn in to...chaos of the liberal degree.

Thanks anyway......................

Hmmmm. Let me pass an email along from a wannabe poster (likely a liberal) who got banned quickly, who found my email, and my reply. Draw your own conclusions:

"Re: your comments on Free Republic, Interesting how all the "patriots" at FR brook no opposing viewpoints or dissent. That board's right, I suppose, but about as un-American as you can get. Yes, "Christian patriot" and "liberal" are synonymous--unless you equate "Christian" with "hate," which I do not. And FR just roils with hate, as I discovered after perusing the forum for a couple of hours. I would've replied to you via the board, but I was banned after two comments, neither of which contained obscenities or insults. Respect to you, sir, for your differing views. Would that you could offer the same for mine."

My Reply was:

I dont run that board, but I am sorry you were quickly banned if indeed that was the case. There is plenty of vigorous debate. Just not debates that start accusing everyone on FR of "rioling with hate" or "un-America" as you describe. That's a slur. Yes, if you start calling people on FR hatemongers, etc., you will get banned. I've noticed that posts from new users that look to be disruptive comments rather than helpful comments will be removed / banned. Again, I dont make the rules for that site, take it up with those who do.

As for "Yes, "Christian patriot" and "liberal" are synonymous--unless you equate "Christian" with "hate," which I do not. And FR just roils with hate, as I discovered after perusing the forum for a couple of hours." : Many tenets of liberalism attack the Christian moral world-view, as today's sermon in my church pointed out; our culture is quite secular, and many of those secular elements are being pushed by the left. Most Christians have woken up to this, and see that one party, the Democrat party, is completely in the clutches of the secularists on cultural matters. Did you know that the Democrats will have a *quota* on the number of delegates to their convention that engage in homosexuality and lesbianism? A quota? How is the leftist push for gay marriage etc. compatible with eg Catholic Church's teaching on family, marriage, and children? It isnt.

And of course, you have leftists and liberals like Sen Ted Kennedy who are giving aid and comfornt to America's enemies in their lust to gain partisan advantage. They put partisanship above patriotism. Yet NOBODY in the Democrat party is out there condemning Ted Kennedy, nore the lies of Michael Moore and other leftist blowhards engaged in out-and-out lies against Bush that harm not just our political debate but our world standing; the Democrat establishment doesnt dislike it, in fact they encourage it. So IMHO the comment is well-founded. Liberals and Leftists have abandoned Christian culture and faith in God and country; even more so have been attacking the concept of moral certainty and tried to replace traditional values with perverted moral concepts of multi-culturalism, environmental extremism, the 'culture of death' (proabortion and pro-euthanasia) and neo-pagan moral ethos. This is the kind of point which, if it were not true, we would at least see some evidence of liberals trying to oppose these calamities. (Some old New Deal Liberals have stood up against the many errors of multi-culturalism and moral relativism, but the exception proves the rule.)

Many fine Christians still cling to liberal voting habits or the Democrat party, but mainly because they are not aware of how severe this Leftist intellectual rot is. This is simply a matter of ignorance of how far the New Left has infected and undermined formerly liberal (now truly Leftist) institutions, ideology, and political groups.

As for: " > I would've replied to you via the board, but I was banned after two comments, neither of which contained obscenities or insults. > Respect to you, sir, for your differing views. Would that you could offer the same for mine." The people on FR include people whose sons and daughters are in Iraq, fighting on the front lines. It included people who *themselves* are in Iraq. It includes people of all walks of life, some of us quite well-to-do, others are of humble means and other interests. It's a bunch of real Americans, real patriots - warts and all - who want what is best for this county .... I know, I've met a few. Do you really respect differing views if you engage in ad hominem about this FR group so easily? Anyway, good luck to you.

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.