
Free speech has failed us
ArticleBeing Human
BY Dr Tim Dean 9 OCT 2019
I used to believe in free speech. I used to believe in the power of rational discourse.
I used to believe in what Jurgen Habermas called the “unforced force” of the better argument. I used to believe in John Stuart Mill’s riff that free speech is what keeps superstition and stifling tradition at bay. I used to believe the solution to an abundance of bad speech was more speech.
However, I’m currently going through a somewhat unsettling process of reconsidering these deeply held views. The last two decades has been one long demonstration of the failures of public discourse to drive towards better solutions to the problems we face.
I hardly need to cite the failure of public discourse to prevent the folly of the wars following September 11 and the catastrophic regional destabilisation they caused, or to reform the economic institutions that caused the Global Financial Crisis, or to improve the response to it that ended up bailing out the perpetrators at the expense of the victims, or bring peace to the escalating culture wars that are fracturing nations, or prevent the national self immolation that is Brexit, or stop the election of a dangerously ill-informed narcissist of dubious moral character to the Presidency of the United States, or combat the ongoing misinformation campaign that is resisting action on one of the world’s most urgent challenges: dealing with climate change. And that’s not even an exhaustive list.
Free speech has failed to live up to its liberal promise. It has failed to float the best reasons and arguments to the top and sink the worst ones to the bottom.
Free speech has failed to live up to its liberal promise. It has failed to float the best reasons and arguments to the top and sink the worst ones to the bottom. It has failed to prevent those who actively work to pervert speech from winning over the voting public. It has empowered those who would wilfully employ their reach to promote their ideological agenda. Meanwhile, those who stick to the rules of rational discourse are left shuffling footnotes and politely yelling reasons into the void.
So when The Conversation announced recently that it will be taking a “zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics” in the comments on its articles, I was not shocked.
Once upon a time, we viewed #ClimateChange sceptics as merely frustrating. Not anymore.
As a publisher, we won’t perpetuate ideas that will destroy the planet.@mishaketch explains @ConversationEDU‘s zero-tolerance for climate deniers: https://t.co/VbRmFWWycC
— The Conversation (@ConversationEDU) September 18, 2019
Only a year ago, I would have agreed with the ABC’s Media Watch that “The Conversation is wrong to ban anyone’s views, unless they’re abusive, hateful or inciting violence.” I would have defended the right of the ignorant, misinformed and outright malicious to say their piece and have it shredded by other less ignorant, more informed and hopefully charitable readers.
After all, what’s the alternative? We shut down speech and enable one particular narrative to dominate? Who’s in charge of that narrative? Can we trust them to have more reliable access to the truth? What do we do if that narrative is wrong?
I’m still painfully aware of the importance of these questions, and how hard they are to answer in any satisfying way. And yet, the evidence is clear to me now that in many cases more speech is not always in the best interests of truth or humanity.
In good faith
What has fundamentally changed in recent months is the way I think about free speech and the possibility of rational discourse in general.
Free speech is not an absolute good; it is not an end unto itself. Free speech is an instrumental good, one that promotes a higher good: seeking the truth. That’s the canonical account from John Stuart Mill that still underlies much of our thinking around free speech today.
But free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith: when they all agree that the truth is the goal of the conversation, that the facts matter, that there are certain standards of evidence and argumentation that are admissible, that speakers have a duty to be open to criticism, and that there are many modes of discourse that are inadmissible, such as intimidation, insults, threats and the wilful spread of misinformation. Mill assumed all too readily that such good will was commonplace.
But free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith.
This doesn’t mean that all speech is truth-seeking. In fact, most everyday speech is not about the truth at all. Usually the correct answer to “does my bum look big in this” is “no”, irrespective of the truth. Most speech is about reinforcing relationships, establishing identity or passing the time. Some speech is about subjective issues or values which may not admit true or false answers. Free speech protects this too. But for some speech, the facts do matter, and that’s where free speech is failing us.
In order for truth-seeking free speech to work, we need strong social norms that promote good faith. And it’s precisely these norms that have broken down in recent years (not that they were ever very strong). And this is because humans are not nearly as rational as we (or Mill) would like to think. And we’re painfully easy to manipulate.
When I teach critical thinking, I give the usual cautionary spiel about not flinging out argumentative fallacies, like the old ad hominem, ad populum or slippery slope. But the very fact that I have to give that spiel is because these fallacies work. When employed effectively, you’ll “win” a lot more arguments using fallacies than by playing by the rules – if you consider persuading/intimidating/misleading someone to accept your point of view a “win.”
I similarly caution students to be wary of the power of appeals to emotion and the force of social pressure, and to be mindful of cognitive biases that can lead our thinking astray. Again, these are important because they are the mechanisms that actually motivate many of our beliefs and that can be most effectively used to persuade others.
What I don’t say – but maybe I should – is that critical thinking is useful when it comes to policing one’s own thoughts, but it’s pitifully impotent when it comes to changing others’ minds. If you start throwing syllogisms across the dinner table, or politely point out that someone is affirming the consequent at the pub, or hope that revealing the contradictions embedded in someone’s assumptions in a comment thread on Facebook is going to change their mind, you’re quickly going to find out you’ve joined the ranks of those politely yelling reasons into the void. I know only too well what that feels like.
Anti-social media
Compounding this is the fact that we have gone to great lengths to build new technologies that promote the worst features of bad faith discourse. If you wanted to design a means of communication that made rational argumentation as difficult as possible yet rewarded the use of every argumentative fallacy under the sun, you’d be hard pressed to top Twitter. It only allows enough characters to express conclusions, not premises. The Like button gives the same weight to the expert as the ignoramus. Status is earned through number of followers, which is like institutionalising the fallacy of ad populum.
Facebook is just as bad for different reasons. Not long ago, if you had a penchant for conspiracy theories, racial vilification or fringe anti-science theories, you’d be hard pressed to find enough like-minded nutjobs in your neighbourhood to hold a bi-monthly tin foil hat dinner. Now, you can join with thousands of like-minded cranks from all around the world on a daily basis to reinforce and radicalise your views.
There’s also evidence that a group of people with diverse views will tend to gravitate towards the most extreme views in the group. And that people who believe one conspiracy theory tend to believe in and share many. And that cultivating outrage only promotes more animosity towards one’s perceived opponents and encourages greater retributive invective and bad faith.
There’s also abundant evidence that people find falsehoods to be more credible the more often they encounter them, even if they’re posted by someone who’s debunking them. As such, falsehoods spread more easily on social media than facts. So the outrage industry is self-sustaining, as even those raging against them share them with their friends, thus spreading the poison even further. (This is why I urge everyone to STOP SHARING GARBAGE on social media, even if you’re intending to debunk it, but particularly if it just pisses you off. The beast feeds on your friends’ eyeballs.)
Add the well known bubble effect, which filters out dissenting views and reinforces in-group identity, and bad faith is all but guaranteed. Free speech in this context only facilitates a slide away from the truth.
That being so, it’s with some alarm that I note that Facebook is now exempting politicians from its normal community standards – the same standards that are intended to prevent bad faith discourse like hate speech and harassment. According to Facebook’s new VP of Global Affairs and Communications, the former UK politician Nick Clegg, it’s because Facebook’s crew “are champions of free speech and defend it in the face of attempts to restrict it. Censoring or stifling political discourse would be at odds with what we are about.”
Clegg invokes a tennis analogy to describe Facebook’s approach to speech: “our job is to make sure the court is ready – the surface is flat, the lines painted, the net at the correct height. But we don’t pick up a racket and start playing. How the players play the game is up to them, not us.”
Here’s a better analogy. The court was never flat. Human psychology means it started off warped, and it’s twisted even more by the technology created by Facebook itself. The players know this, and some are exploiting it to their advantage, and to humanity’s disadvantage. If free speech is meant to do anything at all positive, then it takes active intervention to flatten the court, not a hands-off wilful abdication of responsibility.
If free speech is meant to do anything at all positive, then it takes active intervention to flatten the court, not a hands-off wilful abdication of responsibility.
Hit prediction: this policy is going to be a disaster, and Facebook will revoke it with grievous apologies either before or after the 2020 US Presidential election after a spate of heinous posts by politicians are left to fester on our feeds.
What worries me the most is that those who understand the failings of free speech the best are the ones who know how to use speech to manipulate us to their ends. It’s the political operatives, the Cambridge Analytica’s, the climate change deniers, the alt-right meme machines, the political demagogues. They are the ones who benefit the most from free speech, not the experts, not the scientists, not the academics, not those individuals who are willing to do some homework and engage in good faith with an open mind.
So, to those who care about facts, evidence and the power of rational discourse to help us arrive at the truth, I say: WAKE UP. We’re losing, and with us, truth and humanity. The mongers of misinformation and agents of bad faith are driving us into the dirt, and we’re down here tilling the very soil that allows the weeds to flourish.
Shut it down
Free speech has failed us. That’s why I think The Conversation is justified in banning certain forms of well established misinformation on its site, whether it’s delivered by trolls or people who are misguided enough to believe it.
The Conversation as a website is predicated on the importance of expertise. It only publishes articles by qualified academics, and only allows them to write on areas in which they are experts. It encourages a diversity of views and debate amongst its authors. I know, because (full disclosure) I used to work there, editing the science and technology section. True to its name, The Conversation also wants to encourage discussion and debate amongst readers. But it is in no way obliged to give a platform to anyone. It is able to determine the standards of discourse in its own domain.
So if the “conversation” in the comments section slips well outside the bounds of respect for evidence, reason or good faith discourse that The Conversation seeks to promote, then it ought to be allowed to disqualify it. It’s not like the readers can’t spread their views on other platforms with lower standards. Sadly, there’s an abundance of those around these days. Freedom of speech doesn’t require everyone to allow just anyone to walk into in their garden and plant whatever they want.
Freedom of speech doesn’t require everyone to allow just anyone to walk into in their garden and plant whatever they want.
That said, I am convinced that we need some forums where free speech can operate in an expansive way. At the moment, I think universities are the best candidates, which is why I resist the deplatforming of academics or speakers on campus, no matter how controversial their views. Universities need to get better at managing this, because they’re one of the last bastions of truly open enquiry.
But I’m increasingly coming to believe that we need to get real about the failures of free speech in many public forums, and fight back against those who would pollute discourse with bad faith. I’m not convinced we should go as far as Herbert Marcuse, who argued that civil discussion was futile, so all that’s left is violence. But I do think we can’t maintain the naive position that “more speech is always a good thing.”
The paradox of free speech
I’ll be the first to say I don’t know what to do. But I have some initial ideas. I suspect there’s a short term and a long term solution. In the long term, we want to rehabilitate public discourse by encouraging good faith. That’s a decades long project, and one that will require the rebuilding of a great deal of social capital that has been degrading over decades.
This is not necessarily a project that is conducted through rational discourse itself. Rather, it’s something that requires constructive social discourse. It requires relationship building, the restoration of trust, the separation of belief from identity, and the buttressing of social norms that make rational discourse a possibility.
And in the short term, I’m increasingly open to shutting down speech that is not only conducted in bad faith, but is polluting discourse itself, so encouraging more bad faith. The problem of dealing with speech that corrupts speech is related to Karl Popper’s famed “paradox of tolerance.” If we believe that tolerance is good, how should we treat those who are intolerant? If we tolerate them, won’t they end tolerance? And if we don’t tolerate them, doesn’t that make us intolerant?
The solution to this paradox is elegantly expressed by Peter Godfrey-Smith and Benjamin Kerr in an article published on – ironically enough – The Conversation. Godfrey-Smith argues that in order to protect “first-order” of tolerance of individual actions – say, certain religious practices or having a homosexual relationship – means we must be “second-order” intolerant of actions that are themselves intolerant of these actions, and it’s in no way contradictory or hypocritical to do so. That’s why we have anti-discrimination laws that are explicitly intolerant of intolerance.
Similarly, in order to protect the power of free speech to help seek the truth, I think we need to be more intolerant of speech that subverts the very possibility of speech to seek the truth. Crucially, that doesn’t mean shutting down speech by people who are just ignorant or wrong. What it does mean is shutting down bad faith speech that muddies the waters, that spreads misinformation, that threatens or coerces, or that exploits known psychological biases to mislead.
in order to protect the power of free speech to help seek the truth, I think we need to be more intolerant of speech that subverts the very possibility of speech to seek the truth.
There’ll be a price to shutting down certain types of discourse in some forums. Some legitimate speech may be hampered. But if the price of not doing it is more polluted discourse, more bad faith, more wars, more Brexits, more Trumps, and a world that is more than 4 degrees warmer, then I know which side of the trade-off I prefer.
I still believe in the potential of free speech to seek the truth. I still believe it ought to be practiced in some forums. I still believe it’s something worth fighting to enable and preserve. But I think you only need to look at the last two decades – and speculate about the two decades to come – to realise that our current approach to free speech has failed. And the stakes are high.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLifestyle + Health
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law
VideoBig Thinkers + Explainers
Stan Grant: racism and the Australian dream

BY Dr Tim Dean
Dr Tim Dean is Senior Philosopher at The Ethics Centre and author of How We Became Human: And Why We Need to Change.
21 Comments
I liked the essay because I believe we are drifting into the collapse of democracy. We are in this moment so nervous about the virtues at first blush of tolerance and free expression. I say “collapse” because are ability to “flourish,” as Aristotle would say, crosses others whose needs are all now of equal importance. I spent 30 months in Germany representing my church back in 1961-64. The vacuum created by the post WWI opened the passage to power Hitler took: “freedom,” “safety” [fear fed surrender of certain private rights]. The WH is mobbed by a mob while the president “Commands” the VP” to “get over there and take control of power.” Our economic and social/cultural system will not bear the weight of countless desires and demands. As we slide into chaos, aided by climate change and mass migration to safter climes, we reach desperately for someone/anyone who promises order and safety, even a kind of predictability Covid and climate and cultural upsurge have created. Uncertainty is more than humans can bear.
Replyseveral principles come to mind : 1.”freedom they cry when they mean licence” to do whatever they like…
2. oscar wilde wrote in the “portrait of dorian grey”: “the worst sin of all is [bad] influence” as it affects the whole future of other people. why do people emit bad influence? because they can. I am on a residential committee and because of COVID we have been doing emails instead of face to face meetings. It is amazing how personally insulting people can be online. They know they can hide behind printed words and say things they would not say to your face. Anger, resentment and other personal issues come into play online. Scary stuff!
3.In ancient democratic Greece it was common for some of the wealthy stakeholders to employ a rhetorician do argue their point .
As a result these rhetoric experts were then regarded with suspicion because of their ability to persuade people to the less universal outcome.(Compare the modern media editorials which usually has a big business agenda )
4 that same Greece held public responsibility high for any public servant. The punishment for defrauding the public was death not just a resignation of the party scapegoat. Barry O’farrel springs to mind.We should simliarly hold politicians to an even higher standard of discourse not a lower one!!!
An ethical dilemma for primary school students was whether to allow a student to publish an article in the school magazine
promoting smoking or at least denying the negative health aspects of smoking (because the student’s grandmother was alive and healthy despite a lifetime of smoking).should it be published or not?
the result was argued by some students that the free speech idea should allow it to be published provided a balancing argument is also published since the weight of evidence was in favour of harm to health and also the need not to allow naive students to be influenced to what is perceived by others as greatly detrimental to health.
Again Oscar Wilde might say no to the first but may accept the second approach as compromise.
“[Bad] influence is the worst of sins” he has said ,Good influence must be given its rightful place.
“Free speech has failed us.” Well, there’s a bit of hyperbole.
Does free speech solve all problems, instantly? No, but have a bit of patience. Free speech has served us pretty well over the last 230 years.
There’s more than a little, ‘What I think is rational and the very definition of free speech. If you don’t agree you must be opposed to what I believe and, as such, the enemy of free speech. So shut up.’ about this rant. What this writer is looking for is corroboration, not discussion with no preconception.
ReplyThe “long term solution” of engendering good faith debate is all well and good and a lot of good people are working on it (Listen First, National Conversation Project, More in Common, Impossible Conversations etc etc etc). Plenty of opportunity to get on with it in Australia and The Ethics Centre is doing a good job in that direction. However, Tim seems to have fallen for the golden age fallacy, in suggesting that there was a time not so long ago when public discourse was conducted in good faith and now it is not. As in most things, there was never a golden age, there were always many speakers and actors in bad faith. They may be noisier now, but are arguably easier to spot. I don’t like the toxic tone and polemical insincerity of many on the right and the left, I just try to focus on the issues, the quality of the facts and arguments whoever they come from, as I am sure most of the common sense majority still do, imperfect though the policy results might be.
If anyone is surprised by the possibility that there are alternative reasonable views held in good faith by good people on some of the subjects Tim mentions, that would nicely demonstrate the enduring necessity and value of free speech, with minimal exceptions. Tim comes uncomfortably close to the extremist’s habit of branding people who don’t agree with his views on certain topics as being bad people, the ultimate ad hominem fallacy now commonplace among social justice warriors as much as the alt-right.
I would go further to argue free speech is not merely instrumental, it is a first order good embedded in human nature and inextricably linked to the human spirit and the search for truth and progress, which depends on the inalienable right of exercise of thought and speech in every individual, or something like that. But you don’t need to get too philosophical to think that the day we hand over our right of free speech to the state, whoever it is controlled by, is the day we are really doomed. I strongly recommend against voting for any humanity-saving new censorship regime and focusing on Tim’s long term solution, which could work sooner than you think. Things are rarely as bad as they seem.
ReplyI agree with Chris above it is the quality of discourse that is an issue, coupled with other factors such as the great numbers of intellectually lazy people not seeking the truth or opposing views, an interesting essay though one which I shall save to read again later and digest more fully
ReplyI have been blocked 9 times in one year,
by FB,
mainly by ‘offended’ theists, usually Christians,
2x times automatically immediately consecutively,
and 2x times FB refusing to show cause!
This last time – automatically by an algorithm….
[Conversation has a strong bias and quickly deletes comments with which that they disagree. Two accounts have been blocked by Conversation…]
ReplyWe need to take Facebook to task for discriminatory censorship:
[”You’ve been temporarily blocked
It looks like you were misusing this feature by going too quickly. You’ve been blocked from using it. Learn more about blocks in the Help Centre.”]
I cannot reply to most comments to me on FB (but not all) – This is a new method of ‘blocking’ by FB
this block has been added, so that I can not comment on many sites (but can on some..?):
ReplyOne problem. Who decides what to censor? Who draws the line? Do we allow Peter Dutton to make the rules? Have we become so neutered that we cant give a rational arguement or so sensitive we cant stand to have someone elses case put, no matter how irrational it seems. Who draws the line?
ReplyFascinating piece, thank you! I too would love to see ignorant speech, or utterances intended to mislead for nefarious ends, removed from public discourse. I support the Conversation’s stance on climate change deniers – let them go elsewhere! But it’s a complicated thing when applied to society at large – limiting what people can say. It would be nice if everyone were educated to a level of critical thinking that allowed them to spot manipulators and do their own screening, but in the absence of this perhaps some kind of censorship would be in the public good. But if the words are to be shut off, what about the person wilfully “committing” them? Is there a type of fraud or hate crime involved here? Should trolls and trumps be not only excluded, but punished? (Just being devil’s advocate here).Food for thought. Keep it coming please 🙂
ReplyDr Tim Dean has moved from being an academic to being an activist. Maybe he always was an activist having worked on the Conversation before. According to his article, free speech seems to be ok only as long as it promotes what he thinks is right.
ReplyLol, we can only hope Mark.
But then that technology might be exploited to only spot fallacies of a particular political spectrum, whilst appearing a nuetral robot..
maybe an AI engine could read through all the social media comments, understand the context and block all comments that violate the arguement fallacies mentioned in the article. I wonder if there would be any comments left in Facebook? It might also teach us how to form a valid arguement.
ReplyI enjoyed reading this essay. A couple of minor quibbles:
“I hardly need to cite the failure of public discourse to prevent the folly of the wars following September 11 and the catastrophic regional destabilisation they caused.”
The problem was the mostly unavoidably low quality of the public discourse.
Post-9/11, Richard Butler had written a book “Saddam Defiant” which said chemical and biological weapons posed such a threat to humanity that we couldn’t possibly tolerate them being in the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes. He thought of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a rogue regime. The British biological weapons expert David Kelly made the same point. In both cases we COULD perhaps have adopted the same approach climate sceptics adopt in relation to professional climatologists, arguing that Butler and Kelly might tend to exaggerate the threat because both had a vested interest in policymakers and citizens taking their recommendations seriously.
Intelligence organisations and Saddam’s opponents all seem to have believed Saddam possessed at the very least residual stocks of chemical and biological weapons he’d been ordered to dispose of. It seemed entirely improbable that he would have disposed of this most controversial bit of his weapons arsenal in secret, without therefore being able to get the benefit of having complied with UNSC directives. The Australian chief weapons inspector Rod Barton wrote a book after the war – The Weapons Inspector – in which he says he and his fellow weapons inspectors gave Colin Powell’s February 2003 UN speech 8 marks out of 10. He says they were astounded to find no stocks of WMD once the war had ended. He also says it doesn’t surprise him they didn’t find WMDs before the war began: he recalls a training exercise in a building where different inspection teams were tasked with finding the mock WMDs Barton and other trainers had planted there. One team failed to discover the building had a basement and another team left its “top secret” notes behind. In short, he says the teams weren’t fully competent and they had a whole country to search.
On the night of his resignation, Andrew Wilkie was interviewed at least twice by the ABC. The transcript of the Lateline interview is available online. In those interviews Wilkie says Saddam definitely has WMDs, definitely needs to be disarmed, but that he believes diplomatic avenues haven’t been exhausted. He says he believes Saddam’s regime is contained (we know from the Australian Wheat Board scandal that it wasn’t, and containment required American troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia, which we know was one of the grievances Osama bin Laden had against America). He says sanctions are working (again, we know this was one of bin Laden’s grievances and we know sanctions were taking a heavy toll on Iraqi civilians).
In the end, the sensible debate was between idealistic optimists who thought newly liberated Iraqis would welcome the defeat of Saddam Hussein and the so-called Coalition of the Willing would engineer a peaceful and quick transition to a less despotic post-Saddam regime and conservative pessimists who preferred to stick with the uneasy, barely tolerable, status quo.
It’s worth considering very carefully the issues raised in the Iraq War debates, because similar discussions are happening now in relation to Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Northern Syria, leaving the Kurds exposed.
Second quibble: “or stop the election of a dangerously ill-informed narcissist of dubious moral character to the Presidency of the United States”. Well, Hillary won the popular vote 65,853,514 to 62,984,828.
ReplyDear Chris,
Congratulations, firstly for having written a much better essay than the above author Dr Tim Dean who wrote the main article to which you are responding; secondly, I thank God for free speech, even that of twisted Dr Tim Dean, because it lead you to write a great commentary clarifying the case against Saddam Hussein. A rare treat! I shall be sharing your essay on my Facebook page.
I have no problem with free speech provided it is the truth any way who defines hate speech?
ReplyThat cuts out most public speech then Ron . There are many mistruths spoken by public figures, while those affected by it are not given a wide enough platform to be heard to stop others being influenced by the misinformation who then seek to harm them.
Also there is also a lot of public speech that is neither true nor false, but simply derogatory and again causing harm.
How is it possible to neither true or false?! that implies a degree of falseness, therefore it falls under the umbrella of false, with the qualifier “may contain an element of truth”.
ReplyAny sort of freedom come with obligations and responsibilities, without these it is privilege, free speech is no different.
We extend this privilege to individuals and organisations who lie, misinform, cherry-pick and use a host of other strategies to mislead the public.
The media is failing us badly by not calling out and exposing these manipulations.
Join the conversation
Is it time to censor trolls and hate speech?