We can only agree to disagree. We can't trust everyone, but societies where people tend to trust each other are places where people are much happier, and where the common wealth grow much faster. There's a video on Youtube about trust I was about to explain here, but I will just post the link. The speaker refer to a social experiment on trust that's a huge eye-opener. It's 22 minutes, and can easily be accelerated to X1,25, then it's only about 16 minutes. And it's really worth it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHyApqVjddQ

I have a hard time swallowing the principle of salvation by excess of lies. You guys are basically saying that people would lie less cause we would all become perfect lie detectors as a result of living in a world where everyone lie all the time.

It makes me think of that NRA argument where we would all be safer if everyone had guns. I hope you guys are seeing the parallel. So everyone would learn to swim through lies like ducks if only everyone would lie more? That's what I'm hearing right now and I don't think it makes any sense.

We are already living in a system where people lie way too much. More of what does not work can't be the solution. In fact, being skeptical about others is a very bad thing. Women's are brainwashed from their early childhood by a ton of "never trust men" principles. Fear of strangers, etc. And the result of that is nice guys who never lies have a very hard time connecting with girls. When those who lie all the time, as a second nature, pass through women's defences like a hot knife in butter.

And I don't even think that people would tend to lie more in a society where free speech is absolute. Companies, medias and governments might try to lie more at first. Tell us smoking cures cancer, we would all be safer with more guns, etc. But if the population has absolute free speech too, it would be easier to put their lies back in their faces. Maybe that's what Terrapin Station was trying to say. Said that way, now I really believe it would make governments and medias more transparent. And as a result of living in a transparent system, people would lie less. Certainly not more.

I'm not sure I understand your first point. Do you mean people would be less likely to lie cause it would be harder for them to lie without getting caught?

What's weird is absolute freedom of speech would also come with the absolute freedom to lie, with zero consequences ever. So I would tend to think that people would just lie more. But in a way, if the whole system become more transparent, it's likely that the average person will also become more transparent. So they could indeed lie less. Very hard to say.

I don't think he has actual powers. He just advise. And he does have a very interesting background. He's much more than the son of somebody.

Now that I read myself again, the first quote you made of me does sound insulting. But you're making a false association based on that. People can think about something for decades, and still be filled with superstitions till their last breath.

On their death beds, people with religious beliefs are 4 times more prone to delirium than non-believers. And I believe it's cause they tried to conquer their fear of death by taking a bad tool like religion. When there are tools out there harder to master, but giving much better results. Like philosophy. Or just "Not giving a fuck about dying". That's working great for me.

Also, someone can think about something for 2 seconds, and happen to be right on the first guess. And someone can be wrong about something, and just add meat over and over around their false beliefs. Time tend to make us wiser, but it's not a one-way ticket.

I'm thinking a lot about your second point (If you were a king), which sounds simple, but open up a lot of doors. I think deep down inside of me, there's fear of the unknown. Could you describe what you think the overall effects on society would be if there really was pure freedom of speech in your kingdom?

It's funny cause I'm watching an old show right now called Fantasy Island. Where a distinguished French host receive people on his island, promising to make their best fantasy come true. There's 2 different fantasies per episode, and there's 7 seasons total. Some episodes are on Youtube if you want to see what I'm talking about.

I think your fantasy of a society with absolute free speech would make a very good episode. And most of the times, there's gonna be a "Be careful what you wish for" kind of twist in the scenario. People will realize that there's always downsides to their fantasies. When at first, they only see the good sides, and they expect to spent a perfect week-end filled with pure joy. But it's never happening.

Your last point (about not allowing violence in response to free speech) have me wonder about your definition of violence. Are you considering psychological violence? Cause most people, when they know they can't hurt someone physically, will find twisted ways to make people's lives miserable. The "Informal social control" effect I referred to earlier, works in insidious ways.

Also, not only physical violence is likely not to be reported to justice, but psychological violence is almost never reported. So I don't think freedom of speech would be much greater than it is today. And it would save the US government billions that they would not waste anymore on censorship, so they will just finance more wars. Be careful what you wish for! Haha. Don't worry, I'm kidding.

But what would be a good effect of absolute free speech would be that rich and/or powerful people would not be allowed to fire artists or comedians who supported something they didn't like. Let's take the case of Louis CK. Normally, this exceptional comedian would already be back on TV by now, but people are scared as shit in USA. They fear they could also drown in quicksands if they just say something like "I think the guy is a good comedian, and I would love to see him back on TV.". It could be enough to end their career. And this is also part of the "informal social control" effect, even if it's made by rich people. Cause it's not about the law, it's about personal vendettas.

That's a really sad thing about censorship. Cause a few people can decide to deprive 100 millions people of a comedian they love, someone who make their lives better, make them better persons. And the reason why they do that, is cause 3 grown up women's saw his penis. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. We see breasts all the times, almost everyday, and nobody call themselves victims. But apparently, seeing a penis is an horrible experience. Worst than death.

So I still don't think that free speech should be absolute, but I would not mind to live in your kingdom for 1 or 2 months, just to see what happens. It would certainly be a valuable experience.

Very interesting point of view. In fact, as I tried to say earlier in other terms, the problem are the censors themselves. If as Socrates suggested, there was a society with a philosopher in command, then if ever there was censorship, it should really be for the greater good. Not so a few can profit from the many, or to help them stay in power. But in today's society, we can't really advocate for censorship, cause most people in command can't be trusted. As Michael Jackson said, "They don't really care about us".

By the way, I've read that Norway hired a Philosopher as "moral compass" for the government in 2005. The guy is named Henrik Syse. It would be very interesting to see what came out of this surprising move. This is basically Socrates theory coming to life. Even if he's not the commander in chief. And likely not all his advice is systematically applied.

I just read a wiki page about him, and he is the son of a former prime minister (Jan P. Syse).

No problemo.

I strongly recommend you start the 48 minutes conference from Susan Cain, and if after 5 minutes you are bored, just stop it. But it's a good gamble. I don't like to watch long videos myself, and I ended up listening the whole audio book (around 12 hours). It's pure gold from start to finish. And she's backed up with science at every corner.

Because of her, now I assume myself as an introvert. I'm proud of it. But most people don't get what I'm proud of, cause the value of a human being today is absurdly based on social skills. It's not even funny. If you have great social skills, and you make friends easily, it's very hard to understand what most introverts must endure. There's so much tolerance in society for psychological violence against introverts.

Now, how is this related to the free-speech debate? Well first of all, I'm not sure you can really understand all the implications of your own beliefs about free-speech. We are not even close, even in 2019, to a society where free-speech is absolute. So what it would look like can only be theorized.

In today's society (With huge variations by countries, states, cities and villages) what you are allowed to say is restricted. Nowhere is there absolute free-speech. Nowhere. There's always something you are not able to speak about, or some opinions that will put you in trouble instantly. People will get mad at you, and might even try to destroy you, and ruin you. In sociology, this effect is called "Informal social control". Even if you are allowed, legally, to say something, people might want to destroy you.

All that said, a society where free-speech is absolute would need to systematically punish people when they disrespect the free-speech of others. Otherwise people would just censor themselves like they always did. That's the effect of "Informal social control" (All sorts of violence and threats, usually done by extroverts to make everyone shut up. Not just introverts.). People fear their own opinions, cause their reputations, safety, financial well-being, and sometimes even their lives are on the line; when they touch certain topics, likely to inflame some people or groups.

It's funny cause while I'm writing this, I just convinced myself that it should be a good thing for introverts if we really reach a society where free-speech is absolute. But only if we start to punish people who try to control what others are allowed to say. You almost convinced me of your own belief, just by letting me talk. That's the power of free-speech. :O)

On another matter, to back up my original claim (about extroverts smothering introverts), the only concrete example I can think of at the moment are sects. I'm gonna talk as if all leaders were all males, for obvious reasons.

The leader of a sect is the archetype of the extrovert (Someone who tend to modify his environment to suit his needs), and he generally surrounds himself with a few extroverts (inner circle) and a ton of naive introverts (bottom of the pyramid). And the bottom of the pyramid slowly become one with the beliefs of their leader. They start to believe everything he tells them, and at some point, it become natural for them to twist arms in the name of their leader, to force members into submission, and make them true believers too, by all means. Any fundamentalism, religion, and most social movements start that way. Even movements actually making some sense have a structure where a few extroverts use introverts as tools to get things done.

Right now, I think society need more freedom of speech, cause public debates are kind of rigged, and most speakers are selected, or tolerated by those in power, cause their beliefs are close to their owns.

You only quoted a part of the citation. It's out of context now. I'm not 100% sure about the formulation, but it goes like this : "Saying I don't mind if the government spy on me cause I have nothing to hide is like saying I don't need free speech cause I have nothing to say.". The quote is an argument against mass surveillance, and also pro-free-speech. Not the opposite. Chomsky certainly mind about freedom of speech. He's one of the biggest advocates of freedom of speech.

It was said in one of his videos you can find on Youtube. I don't know which one. And I also heard Edward Snowden say that in an interview. In fact, Snowden said it first. And Chomsky quoted Snowden. But I could not say in which video Snowden said it also. But it was on Youtube for sure.

I might have replied to your questions without the right quote procedure. So look for my longer message.

Terrapin Station thank you very much for your response. I do like a respectful debate. I can give a very interesting source on how the majority smothers introverts. There's a free E-Book very easy to find online called "The power of introverts". The short conference by Susan Cain is also available on Youtube. It's about 48 minutes (and you can even put it at X1,25 speed to make it go faster). There's also the first part of the book available on Youtube. It's 6 hours long, and it's all worth it.

The second thing about morons making wise people shut up can also be answered in part by the same conference, but I was referring more to how violence in society (physical and psychological) is the tool of the person who lack intelligence, generally used against someone with more skills and intelligence, and/or against people we think are too nice to counter-attack us. Violence is a way to gain back control in situations when someone think he/she can't win playing by the rules.

There are boundaries in society to prevent violence, but they're only partially efficient. And it targets mostly physical violence. The concept of bullying is an archetype of the extrovert making the life of an introvert miserable. And when adults intervene in bullying matters, it's usually when there's physical violence involved. So as long as it's "only" psychological, it basically never ends. And even after school is over, the damages are there for good.

Ironically, a lot of introverts bullied for years end up in prison, cause they've let themselves be psychologically bullied for a very long time. And one day they snap, and respond with an act of extreme violence. Like stabbing a bully. And they are jailed, while the bullies and their friends are legally considered victims.

Extroverts are better than introverts in social games. They are more charismatic, people have a hard time saying no to them, they are always believed more, when in fact they lie much more than introverts. I'm not gonna quote the whole Susan Cain book, but generally speaking, extroverts have better opportunities in society. In theory, everybody can to anything they want, but everything in modern society is easier to achieve if you are an extrovert. The age of social networks is very tough on them. I'm sure you won't be surprised now if I tell you I consider myself an introvert.

From some of your beliefs, I would tend to think you are more on the extrovert side. Cause it's very obvious from an introvert perspective that "pure" free speech is a dangerous thing. It's a reflex for an introvert to think before they act, or think before they speak. So not giving our opinions when we have the chance is something we are used to. So we don't tend to see a drama there. But there is one. The drama is that extroverts decide almost everything in society. For the best or for the worst. And what they decide is usually good for extroverts, and not that good for introverts.

A good example from Susan Cain is that it became mainstream in most industries to force people to work in teams. Usually teams of 4 or 5 people. But introverts are known to be way more efficient when working alone. Most of the brilliant minds in the world are introverts, and they prefer to work alone, in a quiet environment. But they are forced to brainstorm in teams anyway. Which is a huge loss for society, cause very few ideas from introverts actually make the final cut.

Now, back on free speech. As Noam Chomsky said, saying "I don't mind if the government spy on me cause I have nothing to hide" is like saying "I don't need free speech cause I have nothing to say". Well other people might have something to say. And it might be very helpful to society if they are allowed to say it. That's why I'm 95% for free speech. But the 5% where I'm against it would be to regulate the times where free speech becomes abusive.

For an example, "pure" free speech would mean that advertising companies could tell us any lies they want about their products, without any consequences. The tobacco industry could tell us that smoking is good for the health, and it's also very good for kids, it can help kids cope with anxiety, etc. "Pure" free speech mean there would be zero regulation. So zero boundaries against lies. So that's why I think science has to play a role on where to draw the lines. As long as science is really independent. Which is not always the case. But it's still much better to rely on science to draw the lines, than to let the free market decide everything.

By the way, in my last comment on Sept 28th 2019, I was replying to this comment from Terrapin Station. From 2 months ago.

In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist.

I don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence. — Terrapin Station

This is a simplistic and idealistic view. I would love to agree with an absolute free speech policy, but in practice, allowing everyone to say anything they want is a dangerous thing. Right now the medias are simplifying the issue to the "you hurt my feelings" bullshit, like censorship is something that the left own. But the political right censored everything they could for centuries. Censorship is certainly not something owned by the left. Not at all. But what's happening right now in the public arena, with the gender issues for an example, is a proof that finally, the left has enough power to do what the right always did. Abuse it's power.

But that's not even the real problem with free speech. The problem is if there's not enough free speech in a society, people become vulnerable to charismatic leaders. So, society can shift toward a cliff within a few years. But if there's too much free speech, "The tyranny of the majority" will always tend to smother the introverts, and the wises.

Only about 10% of people are very intelligent. So absolute free speech means that morons will be able to force wise people to shut up.

What's sad is that those who decide what's censored and what's allowed base their decisions on moral grounds more than science or ethics. Though it's slowly changing now that science is more respected than it ever was (Not yet enough, but certainly more than ever.). I would be 100% for free speech if most people were really intelligent. But average humans are so easy to manipulate. People with charisma can lie and people believe every word. And people without charisma can speak the truth 24/7 (cause truth never sleeps :c) and people don't care about what they say. Noam Chomsky is a good example of that. The number of views for his videos on Youtube are shameful. Considering that the guy basically never lies, and tell everything exactly like it is. But, people prefer comforting lies, than stressful truths. I don't even need to argue that. It's so obvious.

I'm not sure this is relevant to the topic, but I always thought that god himself could never know if another god created him ... so even god himself would need to be careful about his actions. He could be judged by a higher power someday. And that other god would be in the same exact position. I'm not sure what it means in philosophical terms. But there's a kind of "Panopticon" paradox right there. Where god himself would need to fear the consequences of his actions, in case "mega-huge brother" is watching.