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.
"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."
Of course you know this makes you an evil, censoring, Nazi conservative. Right. :) HA!
Just kidding for the mods. A heavy dose of sarcasm for Mr. Robinson's neighborhood.
Nah. It's understood - a given.
King James of Fresno rules!!!
There are other places on the net. Check 'em out.
Did you see that Pravda piece of filth just posted and deleted?..It was venomous lies. That is not a piece that merited discussion, just deletion. It was the marketplace of hatred, not ideas.
Post 107: Disruptors are a nuisance, and they should be banned. Agreed. But conservatism and the Republican party are two different things. When someone expresses an honest opinion, and they are at odds with the big government agenda of the politicians, that's good.
I am loyal to the Constitution. Period. I don't care who it is, if a politician puts forth an idea that diminishes my power and increases the power of the Federal Government, that's a problem. I will say so, here and everywhere.
FR is a conservative forum, but moreover it's Jim's forum. As for what opinions are expressed in that regard, he can make the call on those issues.
So change the channel already. Poof. Problem solved.
Many, such as myself, have exactly this view.
You're funny. :)
That wasn't the point. This is a private forum, and there is a very, very good, sound reason for banning trolls.
Keep studying! I flunked Con Law. 'Course I had a lousy teacher but it took until I became an award winning teacher myself to know that.
Folks who post here and are Trolls, usually get flamed into oblivion pretty fast and it's fun to be part of the firing squad. As long as they're not advocating some sort of violent action or blatant bigotry which might get the Robinson's and FR into trouble, I have no problem with them being here and giving us an afternoon of verbal target practice.
It's called vetting. If you don't know why it's needed, you never met bogdanpolska or hurtgenforest or classygreeneyedblonde.
If this place wasn't moderated, it would descend into a soupy grey mass of flamers, DU buttheads, neonazis and tinfoil nutters. Did I leave out anyone? It's be like Lord of the Flies.
That's a classic -- made me an activist.
We now have a wolfpack mentality instead of a discuss them into submission one, which seemed to work for the preceding years. I know I've got flame scars to show for it.
Many of our threads are just people spouting the party line and cheerleading. It's more entertaining to butt heads then to listen to the cheers. IMO of course.
Exactly, and that is why trolls NEED to be banned.
I started the forest demise, so don't preach to the choir. I've seen some very good first time posts get ratpacked. You need to vett some of the vets while you're at it.
Personally, I think banning should be reserved for extreme cases...as far the rest of the fake-conservatives, they should be attacked with honest TRUE conservative rhetoric whenever they show up and start spewing their neo-con, statist and/or facist diatribe.
But hey, that's just my opinion...
Btw, Jim, my "King James" was not ironic or sarcastic, at all.
Maybe a bit over the top, but heartfelt. I greatly appreciate you, John, the mods and all the supporters.
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.