Statements Aspiring to the Status of Facts
Ah. Someone finally points it out.
The notion of free speech, at its best, speaks to freedom of conscience – the idea that there’s no opinion or worldview whose expression should be proscribed. But it is ever more subject to be hijacked by the muddy notion that it protects all statements aspiring to the status of fact – be they truthfully believed or cynically falsified. Should we, necessarily, protect the statement “nobody died at Belsen”, any more than we regard as free speech a false claim in an advertisement for a vitamin supplement? I’m not sure.
Precisely. Neither am I. Furthermore, I am pretty sure that it’s not helpful to ignore that aspect of the issue when discussing the free speech problem. Irving doesn’t just have an opinion or a belief about the Holocaust, he also falsified the evidence. Should falsification of evidence be protected free speech? In certain situations it emphatically isn’t; in others it’s not approved but it’s also not subject to imprisonment. But either way it’s more than mere opinion. (Truth matters.)
Should falsification of evidence be protected free speech?
Criminalising the falsification of evidence would lead to the criminalisation of ALL political parties, because the aim of politics is power, and truth-seeking doesn’t always help. In fact, lying and self-deception can work wonders. Falsification has much to be recommended.
Interesting to note Sam Leigh’s reference to what one might call ‘freedom of commercial speech’. Such freedom, of course, exists nowhere.
P.S.
I’ve just ordered your book ‘Why Truth Matters’. Perhaps that will contain the answers.
I’m not necessarily talking about criminalising the falsification of evidence, I’m questioning whether it is a right or not. In some situations, of course, falsification of evidence is already a crime; in a lot of others it’s not a crime but it can get you fired, disgraced, etc; in others it can get you sued.
“In fact, lying and self-deception can work wonders. Falsification has much to be recommended.”
Well now what do you mean by that? Lying “can work wonders” in an instrumental sense (or it can backfire), but does that mean it has much to be recommended? Not everything that “can work wonders” in an instrumental sense is necessarily desirable. In other words, are you claiming it’s a good thing for political parties to tell lies?
P.S. Thanks about book! Will of course contain all answers.
OB. Whence comes the leak above my kitchen door. Will it contain that answer ?
Of course, Nick. I said all answers and I meant all answers. Had I meant merely all answers to questions Cathal raised, I would have said so. When I say all, by gum, I mean all.
In other words, are you claiming it’s a good thing for political parties to tell lies?
Of course not — I suppose I should have inserted ‘sarcasm on’, ‘sarcasm off’ tags!
Ah! Sorry – irony perception failure.
Falsification of the evidence – right or wrong? Obviously wrong, but sometimes very useful for promoting the good of oneself or one’s group. It’s a matter of Kant’s categorical imperative versus Plato’s noble lie (or Nietzsche’s view that some things are more valuable than truth). By the way, this should suggest an evolutionary explanation for religion. Also, just for the record, I’d rather know the truth even if it turns out not to be in my interest.