"You don’t need to read the Frankfurt School theorists to know that large governments and corporations produce 'wants' and 'interests' and actively shape the values and desires of a society."
To play devil's advocate, isn't this precisely the purpose of free speech protections? To give individuals a way to publicly push back against these exercises of power? To protest, to create countercultures opposed to prevailing social norms? It seems to me that a more regulated free speech regime would actually increase governments' and corporates' ability to construct and coercively enforce what Foucault calls "regimes of truth."
All excellent points- the only reservation I have is about Assange- did he or did he not assist Chelsea Manning in hacking a server? Did he or did he not act as the proxy for Guccifer 2.0 and the Prighozin led Russian cyber hacker crew that was waging a cyber war on America? Weren’t Trump minions like Pompeo and Stone actually more concerned about Assange revealing that he was a part of the Russian disinfo campaign being waged in America during the 2016 election then protecting national security interests? I’m not criticizing Assange for being a journalist, but is it possible he has been a willing participant in Russian disinfo, just as Glen Greenwald and Tucker Carlson have been shills for Putin’s plans of dominating Europe? And if so, that's not free speech for free speech’s sake. That’s political espionage.
Objection: we’re virtually powerless to prevent the government from hiring police and declaring war. That’s not the same as “trusting” it. But absolutely, we're right *not* to trust it to censor information beyond First Amendment limits.
In practical terms, i.e. in ways that large societies are organized are there better models than the First Amendment and it's interpretation in the last 100 years or so?
About truth maximization: is that the right measure to optimize for? Over, say, freedom? The thought of a bunch of people walking around picturing a flat earth in their heads is amusing, and a small price to pay for a guarantee that people are not locked up for having false ideas. And even if truth maximization (over a long time horizon) is the goal, removing impediments to free inquiry, over any regulation on speech seems like the better bet.
"You don’t need to read the Frankfurt School theorists to know that large governments and corporations produce 'wants' and 'interests' and actively shape the values and desires of a society."
To play devil's advocate, isn't this precisely the purpose of free speech protections? To give individuals a way to publicly push back against these exercises of power? To protest, to create countercultures opposed to prevailing social norms? It seems to me that a more regulated free speech regime would actually increase governments' and corporates' ability to construct and coercively enforce what Foucault calls "regimes of truth."
praying for Assange and his family. great reporting by Craig Murray - https://consortiumnews.com/2024/02/21/craig-murray-your-man-on-assanges-final-appeal/
All excellent points- the only reservation I have is about Assange- did he or did he not assist Chelsea Manning in hacking a server? Did he or did he not act as the proxy for Guccifer 2.0 and the Prighozin led Russian cyber hacker crew that was waging a cyber war on America? Weren’t Trump minions like Pompeo and Stone actually more concerned about Assange revealing that he was a part of the Russian disinfo campaign being waged in America during the 2016 election then protecting national security interests? I’m not criticizing Assange for being a journalist, but is it possible he has been a willing participant in Russian disinfo, just as Glen Greenwald and Tucker Carlson have been shills for Putin’s plans of dominating Europe? And if so, that's not free speech for free speech’s sake. That’s political espionage.
Objection: we’re virtually powerless to prevent the government from hiring police and declaring war. That’s not the same as “trusting” it. But absolutely, we're right *not* to trust it to censor information beyond First Amendment limits.
In practical terms, i.e. in ways that large societies are organized are there better models than the First Amendment and it's interpretation in the last 100 years or so?
About truth maximization: is that the right measure to optimize for? Over, say, freedom? The thought of a bunch of people walking around picturing a flat earth in their heads is amusing, and a small price to pay for a guarantee that people are not locked up for having false ideas. And even if truth maximization (over a long time horizon) is the goal, removing impediments to free inquiry, over any regulation on speech seems like the better bet.
Freedom of speech is two things; the right to express yourself and the right to hear opinions other than the status quo.
The former is a prerequisite for freedom and the latter is a prerequisite for civilization. Which would any reasonable argument dissuade us from?