I was discussing this with someone the other day—is free speech, plus high standards of rationality, enough to make a good discussion? Or is it necessary to in some ways control the content as well—active curation and cooperation, controlling for a culture of thoughtful discussion?
I had been coming from a very negative definition of free speech—as in an absence of control, censorship—the ability to share thoughts even if they went against the grain, (so long as they were not actually lying or misleading, etc.)-- placing the value on the discussion being open.
The other person is very smart but comes from a pretty different background, and had not put a strong value on being able to say whatever you want, if that speech did not contribute to the conversation. Rather, they had assumed a positive value of free speech—that everyone wanting to participate could actively feel included and able to communicate their thoughts. They felt that communities favoring discussion would want to find interesting and diverse perspectives, and have norms that curated primarily good-faith participation. I’m not sure it’s an exact response, but seemed on-topic to this post
I was discussing this with someone the other day—is free speech, plus high standards of rationality, enough to make a good discussion? Or is it necessary to in some ways control the content as well—active curation and cooperation, controlling for a culture of thoughtful discussion?
I had been coming from a very negative definition of free speech—as in an absence of control, censorship—the ability to share thoughts even if they went against the grain, (so long as they were not actually lying or misleading, etc.)-- placing the value on the discussion being open.
The other person is very smart but comes from a pretty different background, and had not put a strong value on being able to say whatever you want, if that speech did not contribute to the conversation. Rather, they had assumed a positive value of free speech—that everyone wanting to participate could actively feel included and able to communicate their thoughts. They felt that communities favoring discussion would want to find interesting and diverse perspectives, and have norms that curated primarily good-faith participation. I’m not sure it’s an exact response, but seemed on-topic to this post