I thought this was great too. I found the qualifier to the Declaration of the Rights of Man about men (presumably) being responsible for “such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” very telling: it almost renders the right illusory since the legislature may define virtually anything as an abuse of freedom of speech. Ideally everyone would self-limit their speech to what has a reasonable basis and doesn’t undermine social cohesion, but that doesn’t seem always to be self-evident on Twitter, so the issue of freedom of speech “abuses” inevitably arises. Claire Lehmann has a good piece in The Australian today, pointing out that decorum moderation (as opposed to viewpoint moderation) may be necessary to allow free speech to thrive. It seems to me that urging or mandating reasonableness of opinion and promotion of social cohesion is not going to work in the virtual town square, and maybe the best outcome is that ridiculous inflammatory claims (of the superiority of certain races, say) get ignored or treated with derision and contempt (like flat-earthers) rather than performative outrage.
Thanks. I'd thought that qualifier through but it does undermine it! But it was written when they presumed you could trust a government that was run on rational lines. That trust didn't last long.....
If you haven't read it, I'd recommend the original piece in Quillette (by Jim Rutt) that Claire Lehmann was drawing from. It's worth the read. I'm very likely to include it in the next piece I'm working on.
Thought this was terrific and deserves wide readership. One thought. Perhaps there is merit in exploring our individual responsibility to ensure what we say has a reasonable basis, and that it will not unreasonably undermine social cohesion. I wonder if this itself can be seen as an expression of healthy epistemic humility and that people speaking reasonably is something that is unwisely assumed in the discourse in freedom of speech.
Thanks. I've probably already committed myself to something like that position in my Humble Every Day post! Although there is a difference between an ideal we should aim for and base standards to govern public discourse. I'm working on something about how confidence and humility lead to different understandings of the reasonable limits on speech. Hopefully that won't take too long.
I thought this was great too. I found the qualifier to the Declaration of the Rights of Man about men (presumably) being responsible for “such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” very telling: it almost renders the right illusory since the legislature may define virtually anything as an abuse of freedom of speech. Ideally everyone would self-limit their speech to what has a reasonable basis and doesn’t undermine social cohesion, but that doesn’t seem always to be self-evident on Twitter, so the issue of freedom of speech “abuses” inevitably arises. Claire Lehmann has a good piece in The Australian today, pointing out that decorum moderation (as opposed to viewpoint moderation) may be necessary to allow free speech to thrive. It seems to me that urging or mandating reasonableness of opinion and promotion of social cohesion is not going to work in the virtual town square, and maybe the best outcome is that ridiculous inflammatory claims (of the superiority of certain races, say) get ignored or treated with derision and contempt (like flat-earthers) rather than performative outrage.
Thanks. I'd thought that qualifier through but it does undermine it! But it was written when they presumed you could trust a government that was run on rational lines. That trust didn't last long.....
If you haven't read it, I'd recommend the original piece in Quillette (by Jim Rutt) that Claire Lehmann was drawing from. It's worth the read. I'm very likely to include it in the next piece I'm working on.
Thought this was terrific and deserves wide readership. One thought. Perhaps there is merit in exploring our individual responsibility to ensure what we say has a reasonable basis, and that it will not unreasonably undermine social cohesion. I wonder if this itself can be seen as an expression of healthy epistemic humility and that people speaking reasonably is something that is unwisely assumed in the discourse in freedom of speech.
Thanks. I've probably already committed myself to something like that position in my Humble Every Day post! Although there is a difference between an ideal we should aim for and base standards to govern public discourse. I'm working on something about how confidence and humility lead to different understandings of the reasonable limits on speech. Hopefully that won't take too long.