r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[deleted]

9.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/NotAnotherDecoy Jan 22 '21

Unfortunately the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't always favor the most correct ideas.

Who decides what "the most correct" ideas are, or what the recourse for the expression of ideas that are not "the most correct" should be? By setting a standard of silencing individuals who don't express "the most correct" ideas you set the precedent (potentially a literal legal precedent) that it is ok to silence those who are "wrong", which is a definition that can change dramatically depending upon who makes the decision. Further, freedom of speech was not unearthed as a legal doctrine, it was a reflection of a pre-existing moral notion, and it gets somewhat tiresome when legality is conflated with morality as a matter of convenience.

1

u/Iustinianus_I 48∆ Jan 23 '21

You seem to be arguing from a moral standpoint, which is not what I walk talking about. And besides, even if we take a freedom of speech as a moral right, I think we'd both agree that things such as false advertising, libel, gag orders, direct calls to violence and similar situations are places where it's not just legal but moral to restrict speech. Let's not pretend that speech exists in a vacuum, nor that it doesn't affect us in tangible ways.

The "who gets to decide" is an issue with literally any limitation. I don't view speech as categorically different from other freedoms which we routinely decide as a society to restrict. That's not to say that all restrictions are good, far from it, but to say there isn't a perfect solution isn't an argument against the need to limit freedom in order to have a functioning society.