The heart of the problem is not exactly what people say, but the reason why they feel they can say it. I went through many different theories like the internet and ego, but the real reason, I believe, is a misunderstanding of the Marketplace of Ideas.
For those of you who do not know, the Marketplace of Ideas is the concept that, if all ideas are allowed to be spoken, the true/good ideas will win out over the wrong/bad. It encourages debate and discourages censorship. All in all, this is a pretty great idea. I really like it. However, there is a bit of a misunderstanding that I have seen a lot lately.
 |
| Accompanying picture to Takei's quote. I enjoy it quite a bit. |
"In the "marketplace of ideas" BAD ideas get devalued in public discourse. When people are called to face the music for their statements, while others rally to defend their ideas, this is that marketplace in action. We DON'T need to defend the right of people to say stupid or incorrect things without PUBLIC or consumer repercussion. We DO need to defend their right to say them without GOVERNMENTAL censure."
I really like this quote. I think it's a pretty good description of the Marketplace of Ideas. I do see one problem, though. It's the last sentence. I would argue that censorship does not just come from the government, it can come from the public as well.
You see, responding to a statement that resonates as false to you with what you see as truth is discourse. Something as simple as "I don't agree. That's dumb" is discourse. Ceasing to support a public figure, organization, company, what have you because you do not agree with them is also a form of discourse. It allows for others to support the idea, to respond with further ideas along the same thought process, and it will commonly end with the better idea winning out. It might take a while, but it will eventually happen.
Lately I have been seeing a lot of people responding to ideas they don't like by demanding action against the speaker of said idea. Notice the use of the word demanding. They don't say things like "I'm going to stop giving you money" or "People who disagree, let's unite and take action." It's usually something along the lines of "Person's boss, fire them." I see that as censorship, not repercussions. Now if the boss of a person that says something many see as dumb feels that it is in the company's best interest to remove that person, then that is one thing, since corporate speech is included in the Marketplace of Ideas. If the person is a public figure of some type for a company then the company has a right to get a new public figure that will say things that follow along with the company's standing.
But what if the person wasn't out of line in terms of company policy? One group of people demanding that person be fired, especially a loud group, is terrifying. Imagine there is no company involved. Imagine you said something that you believe to be truth and the response was not an I disagree, here is another idea, or I'm not talking to you anymore. Imagine it was, instead, along the lines of lose your money, your job, your home, your social standing, etc. yelled at you from all sides. Isn't that kind of terrifying? It would make most onlookers not want to speak up. And that is censorship.
My biggest problem with demanding action in this way is it encourages silence. Silence is what kills the Marketplace of Ideas. Encouraging silence from people with a certain idea is not winning at public discourse, it is simply creating more silence. What eventually happens is you get a silent majority, which is a very real thing in everyone's lives.
If you are in a classroom with 30 people and the professor says something you agree with, but the next several people, say 7, who speak disagree with the professor, how likely is it that you're going to raise your hand and say you agree? Unless you have a strong personality, the likelihood is that you will stay silent. Even if you do raise your hand, what is the likelihood that others who support the idea will? Not very likely. So you will never know if more people agree with the 7 against or the 2 (you and the professor) for, even if everyone else in the class agrees with you and the professor.
The Marketplace of Ideas does not hinge on "the loudest wins." For it to function correctly, it must rely on society picking the best idea. If the people supporting the not-so-great idea are louder than the people with the best idea to the point of terrifying them into silence, the system fails. The system will also fail if the people with the best idea terrify the not-so-great idea people into silence. Why? Because terrifying into silence is not allowing society to decide, it is censoring select groups into submission.
