Althouse: "Is support for free speech correlated with intelligence?/3 studies on that question all point to the answer: yes!"

June 19, 2020

"Is support for free speech correlated with intelligence?/3 studies on that question all point to the answer: yes!"

My son John blogs.

87 comments:

n.n said...: Correlated, yes. Causal, no.; 6/19/20, 2:31 PM
Michael K said...: I guess that's why the left is opposed to IQ tests.; 6/19/20, 2:31 PM
mccullough said...: Intellectual humility is a good quality.

Unfortunately, many schools don’t help to develop this.

People who cannot tolerate other people’s opinions are Fragile.; 6/19/20, 2:36 PM
Not Sure said...: Well, yes. People who can't form coherent sentences don't generally succeed in the marketplace of ideas.

Therefore, Antifa.; 6/19/20, 2:37 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Free speech is good, but false information must be suppressed.

Also, free speech should be suppressed on college campuses if the speech might prevent any marginalized students from succeeding academically.; 6/19/20, 2:42 PM
tcrosse said...: If silence = violence, how much support is there for free non-speech among the bien-pensants?; 6/19/20, 2:42 PM
Gahrie said...: Who is going around yelling "shut up", pulling down statues and demanding safe zones? Who is attacking speakers, and disrupting speeches? Who is getting censored by Facebook and Twitter?; 6/19/20, 2:45 PM
Bill Peschel said...: I can believe this (of course I would; I'm a schmart guy).

I also know my history. Today's shibboleth's is tomorrow's discredited belief, so it's important to consider arguments that challenge your beliefs.

When societies crack down hard on free speech, it's impossible for them to adjust to changing times and new technologies. This results in a breakdown in the law, social unrest and revolutions.

Which means that, as the left cracks down harder on free speech, there should be a rebound at the polls in November. And if they get their way and crack down on a free and open vote, helped by their media allies and the NeverTrump right, and Biden gets elected, the times are going to get worse, economically.; 6/19/20, 2:49 PM
Two-eyed Jack said...: Intelligent people do not support "Free Speech," they may support a wider range of Speech. Nobody really supports Free [Free to Lie, Free to Threaten, Free to Libel, Free to Yell at the Top of my Lungs] Speech.; 6/19/20, 2:49 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Well, at least we didn’t get a post on the definition of the word “intelligence”.
Yet.; 6/19/20, 2:52 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Why the first amendment is not popular with Blacks.; 6/19/20, 2:57 PM
Ken B said...: Ironic, considering your son bans dissent.; 6/19/20, 2:58 PM
Floris said...: From my experience, low intelligence and antipathy towards free speech go hand in glove.; 6/19/20, 2:59 PM
chuck said...: So that's why universities are suppressing free speech. Thanks for the explanation.; 6/19/20, 3:00 PM
robother said...: As anyone observing the loudest students in the college crowd shutting down free speech over the last 20 years could see. Studies, whatever would we do without them?; 6/19/20, 3:02 PM
cubanbob said...: By that definition Zuckerberg and Dorsey are morons.; 6/19/20, 3:07 PM
n.n said...: Intelligence is knowledge, skill. The smart people know what, how, when, where, and why to moderate their speech. #Correlations #Ambiguity #Mischaracterizations; 6/19/20, 3:08 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Ergo our college students are getting dumber?; 6/19/20, 3:08 PM
FullMoon said...: Also, free speech should be suppressed on college campuses if the speech might prevent any marginalized students from succeeding academically.

Or, if it hurts a persons feelings, whether intentional or not.; 6/19/20, 3:12 PM
Josephbleau said...: Silence is violence, and free speech is violence, so the only thing left is coerced speech.; 6/19/20, 3:16 PM
Ken B said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/19/20, 3:16 PM
Jake said...: Only idiots and morons are against free speech.; 6/19/20, 3:17 PM
Josephbleau said...: Smart people think everyone is as smart as they are, and are sometimes humble because of this. Stupid people think they are smarter than anyone.; 6/19/20, 3:19 PM
Ambrose said...: How many people think that agreement with their views correlates with intelligence?; 6/19/20, 3:25 PM
Earnest Prole said...: “Free speech for me but not for thee” is the reasoning of a toddler.; 6/19/20, 3:27 PM
Dave Begley said...: The Left is full of people that want to censor and shut down conservatives.

I was kicked off the Creighton basketball message board (off topic section) because of my conservative views. My final post was in the "Free Speech" thread.; 6/19/20, 3:28 PM
Ken B said...: Apologies. I have deleted.; 6/19/20, 3:31 PM
Francisco D said...: In other words, those with higher cognitive ability might support principles of free speech because of their greater independence of intellect and ego, openness to revise their viewpoints, respect for others’ viewpoints, and lack of intellectual overconfidence.

I have often said that the more I learn, the more I appreciate what I do not know or understand.

We should apply thinking that to our scientific "experts" (I am one). We are not experts because we have all the answers. Hardly. We are experts because we have a method for eventually uncovering truth.

Without the freedom to investigate and opine, there is no advancement for civilization. Given the increasing power of the cancel generation, we may be entering the Dark Ages for science.; 6/19/20, 3:33 PM
Ken B said...: Nicely put Josephbleau.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory.; 6/19/20, 3:37 PM
narciso said...: it seems an inverse corollation, with credentialed graduates,; 6/19/20, 3:49 PM
Lee Moore said...: There's a much simpler and more general explanation - "cui bono ?"

smart folk will approve of competition in the field of ideas

articulate folk will seldom support controls on speech

conscientious folk will approve of "you keep what you earn"

lazy folk will approve of redistribution

small weedy folk will be very against fisticuffs

women will approve of alimony to a much greater extent than men

lawyers will approve of settling things by recourse to law

non-STEM academia will always be the main breeding ground for revolutionaries, for what is non-STEM academia but one long philippic against arithmetic in particuar and reality in general

business and commerce will always be favored by practical people

The only thing on which we will all agree, whatever our talents, personalities, and our stations in life, is that :

THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE

The rich being, of course, anyone with more than oneself.; 6/19/20, 3:54 PM
effinayright said...: Two-eyed Jack said...
Intelligent people do not support "Free Speech," they may support a wider range of Speech. Nobody really supports Free [Free to Lie, Free to Threaten, Free to Libel, Free to Yell at the Top of my Lungs] Speech.
**************
The Common Law idea of Free Speech never included such ideas. In fact, it excluded them.

So you're just makin' shit up.; 6/19/20, 3:54 PM
effinayright said...: Two-eyed Jack said...
Intelligent people do not support "Free Speech," they may support a wider range of Speech. Nobody really supports Free [Free to Lie, Free to Threaten, Free to Libel, Free to Yell at the Top of my Lungs] Speech.
**************
The Common Law idea of Free Speech never included such ideas. In fact, it excluded them.

So you're just makin' shit up.; 6/19/20, 3:54 PM
ALP said...: Hmmm. Having worked around mentally retarded individuals for nearly a decade - I seem to recall some individuals were more relaxed and easy going. Those people had live and let live attitudes that fall in line with 'free speech' types - they don't care what you have to say and they will let you say it. Others - not so much. More stubborn and more likely to argue and shut you down. Call them 'anti-free speech'. If low IQ relates to anti-free speech, isn't that suggesting all mentally retarded folks are right wing? I call BS. Even people with very low IQs can respect the rights of others.; 6/19/20, 3:59 PM
Gospace said...: Mike Sylwester said...
Free speech is good, but false information must be suppressed.

Also, free speech should be suppressed on college campuses if the speech might prevent any marginalized students from succeeding academically.

The first sentence sounds like you might be serious, the second sarcasm.

1. Everyone should wear masks to prevent the spread of the dreaded covid.

2. Everyone wearing masks is useless in covid prevention.

Which one is false information? The same experts and authorities have said bo- and some have flip-flopped multiple times.; 6/19/20, 4:00 PM
TheDopeFromHope said...: The feminatzation of our campuses is a big problem. Women are so emotional and so many can't deal with facts or reality. That's why females are so much more in favor of classifying speech they disagree with as "hate speech."

We need a thousand Hillsdale Colleges.; 6/19/20, 4:02 PM
Inga said...: Ah, that’s why Trump did this...

“...Trump signed an executive order yesterday afternoon directing the federal government to “reconsider the scope” of Section 230, a provision of federal law that shields companies from liability for content posted by their users. The First Amendment was explicitly written to protect the right of citizens to express opposition to their leaders; it says that Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” But to the president, criticism of his falsehoods is a violation of his free-speech rights. This position reverses the purpose of the First Amendment, turning an individual right of freedom of expression into the right of the state to silence its critics.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/trumps-warped-definition-free-speech/612316/; 6/19/20, 4:02 PM
gadfly said...: I find it difficult to support the theory that the relationship between cognitive ability and free speech support is necessarily a good thing. The highest scores went to Socialists, Homosexuals, Anti-religionists and Communists - as if these folks are smarter than the average bear. On the other hand, these results may simply reflect a bias on the part of the researchers.; 6/19/20, 4:09 PM
sparrow said...: Inga,

That 230 clarification is in response to Google and NBCs collusion to suppress the Federalist and ZeroHedge. It's prep for an anti-trust suit.; 6/19/20, 4:09 PM
RobinGoodfellow said...: “Blogger Gahrie said...
Who is going around yelling "shut up", pulling down statues and demanding safe zones? Who is attacking speakers, and disrupting speeches?”

I was assured that was being done by white supremacists.; 6/19/20, 4:14 PM
Ken B said...: Inga
Trump is wrong about 230. But the Democrats are more wrong, they want the section repealed entirely. Biden was quite explicit in this.
How does your theory look now?; 6/19/20, 4:22 PM
Drago said...: Add "Section 230" to the galaxy-sized list of things Inga doesnt understand and therefore is easily triggered by her "betters" who wish to keep her triggered.

BTW, this is why Inga still believes, passionately, that Trump colluded with Russia.....because her "betters" havent yet given her permission to accept reality.; 6/19/20, 4:28 PM
MikeR said...: That's encouraging. Too bad people are so stupid, though.; 6/19/20, 4:33 PM
daskol said...: This finding is in line with Dunning-Krueger, who have an interesting take on what they call intellectual humility: people of higher cognitive ability assume a similar level of ability in others, and therefore underestimate their relative competence. Those of lower cognitive ability make a similar assumption and therefore overestimate theirs. In the first you’re inclined to seek out and consider the opinions of others, and in the second case, what’s the point? I think rhhardin’s about character being so important, and its decline as a public virtue that we actively cultivate, is the ultimate threat to freedom of expression. Given the way cognitive ability is distributed, if we’re counting on it to preserve support for this freedom, we are well and truly fucked. Yes; 6/19/20, 4:38 PM
daskol said...: Section 230 is not protecting people’s speech, nor is the debate around it about protecting Twitter or any other corporate “person’s” speech. Trump’s moves on 230 are in defense of free expression because these “platform companies” are acting a lot like publishers in exercising editorial control over content in their platforms, while arguing that they are more public square/utility like platforms for all opinion. So exposing them to liability for their editorial behavior, holding them accountable for allowing some and disallowing other expression, even if it means they get sued for allowing certain expression, is a defense of the principle.; 6/19/20, 4:44 PM
Tom said...: It’s possible America is too stupid to save.

I’ve lost my business in this pandemic and am in month 4 of no income. At first I tried to save my business. But, now I’m really to the point of saving fuck it. If they come for my house or my car, oh well. Is really worth trying? I keep coming to the conclusion it’s not.; 6/19/20, 5:05 PM
BrentonTalcott said...: imo

Those who are afraid of sincere discourse without limitation

Corral there on own minds

Dialectic leads to truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys2vTiXWhB8

-Sree Saraswati Stotram written by Sage Agastya - Goddess of Learning

The natural melisma of this perfoermer, smashes autotune's plasticity...

I prays for real music again, and the computer be relegated to a tool

instead of a prop.; 6/19/20, 5:17 PM
Josephbleau said...: "Also, free speech should be suppressed on college campuses if the speech might prevent any marginalized students from succeeding academically."

Free Speech violence actually helps slacking students now. If they riot they can coerce their profs to cancel or delay finals. Unfortunately they won't study for the delayed rescheduled ones either and if finals are canceled then they have to be graded totally on their dismal mid terms.; 6/19/20, 5:33 PM
Yancey Ward said...: So, the Democratic Party, the tech companies, the media, and the universities are full of stupid people, right?; 6/19/20, 5:35 PM
Sebastian said...: You wouldn't believe what else intelligence is correlated with.; 6/19/20, 5:48 PM
Sebastian said...: Really smart progs allow intelligent people to think that their support for free speech matters.; 6/19/20, 5:49 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Inga you just don't understand what the Trump Administration is doing in regards to 230, nor does the writer of the essay you linked to. The social media companies are trying to act like publishers and open speech forums at the same time. They have to choose- they are either like the NYTimes, Random House, or National Review- fully liable for the things they publish; or they are like the makers of video phones and not liable for the speech third parties make using their products. If one is going to determine what can and cannot be published on Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube, then one is fully liable for the content they do approve, and can be sued for libel and slander even if they aren't the content maker.

It should be just as easy and correct to sue Twitter for libel as it is the NYTimes, but Twitter hides behind section 230 in a way the NYTimes doesn't get to do. That has to change.; 6/19/20, 5:53 PM
Greg the class traitor said...: People who think for themselves don't become members of the Left

Since the one thing the Left can never allow is independent thought. Which is why the Left is so opposed to freedom of speech.

Note for the mentally challenged:
Freedom of speech: You're allowed to say any stupid thing you want
Freedom of speech and association: I don't have to listen to you

Section 230: Gives Google the power to suppress other people's speech. Supporting that is the diametric opposite of supporting free speech; 6/19/20, 6:05 PM
RK said...: It's probably also the case that intelligence correlates with a desire for truth.; 6/19/20, 6:07 PM
Ironclad said...: Inversely supported. The most intelligent don’t want the riff raff talking back since they have it all figured out. Much like in the 30s when the smart set “knew” communism was the way of the future.; 6/19/20, 6:10 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “It should be just as easy and correct to sue Twitter for libel as it is the NYTimes, but Twitter hides behind section 230 in a way the NYTimes doesn't get to do. That has to change.”

It’s not that easy to sue the NYT - see NYT v Sullivan That requires Actual Malice for public figures suing for defamation.

But I do agree with you. I think that the answer may be for someone to sue Twitter (etc) for defamation, then when they try to shield themselves with CDA §230, show that they are moderating, and thus are publishers.; 6/19/20, 6:30 PM
Ken B said...: Even Birkel deserves free speech.; 6/19/20, 6:36 PM
Jupiter said...: "BTW, this is why Inga still believes, passionately, that Trump colluded with Russia".

It is also why Igna believes that the unfortunate acts of violence, vandalism and looting which took place during the recent peaceable protests around our country were the work of right-wing, Trump-supporting Boogaloos. I often find something charming, if also infuriating, in Igna's utter imperviousness. It could be that she is not a troll.; 6/19/20, 6:36 PM
Jupiter said...: "I’ve lost my business in this pandemic and am in month 4 of no income. At first I tried to save my business. But, now I’m really to the point of saving fuck it. If they come for my house or my car, oh well. Is really worth trying? I keep coming to the conclusion it’s not."

Jesus. I don't know what to say. Meanwhile the government is sending me money I didn't ask for. I take it that is not your current experience. What kind of business is it?; 6/19/20, 6:41 PM
Jupiter said...: "It should be just as easy and correct to sue Twitter for libel as it is the NYTimes"

Well, except what we really want is to make them behave like a neutral platform, not sue them out of existence. Although if that's the only option, I'm for it.; 6/19/20, 6:43 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Here is the problem I see. Smart people on the left give lip service to free speech. But deep down, they are elitists, who believe in credentialism and their pseudo meritocracy, with them, of course, in control. So, they are more than willing to temporarily (ha!) sacrifice free speech for the opportunity of gaining even more control over our society. They are, of course, so much more enlightened that their rule would benefit the masses they feel it is their right to rule. It’s very much like Stalinists and Maoists temporarily suspending freedom, and ushering in a police state, knowing (ha again!) that when their worker’s paradise is fully established, their totalitarian state will presumably wither away. Or, at least that is the theory. Of course, it is an idiotic conceit, which just shows that they aren’t as smart as they want us to believe.; 6/19/20, 6:43 PM
Michael K said...: ga said...
Ah, that’s why Trump did this...

“...Trump signed an executive order yesterday afternoon directing the federal government to “reconsider the scope” of Section 230,

Inga, aside from being dumber than a stump, is not well informed.

Maybe this will help.

Has anyone noticed—everyone who has been caught in blackface is a leftist:

—Ralph Northam
—Jimmy Kimmel
—Jimmy Fallon
—Howard Stern
—Joy Behar
—Sarah Silverman
—Ted Danson
—Gigi Hadid
—Julianne Hough
—Billy Crystal
—Justin Trudeau

Maybe Republicans aren't the problem here?; 6/19/20, 6:44 PM
Unknown said...: Had a discussion this a.m. with an ME grad student who said all the protesters want is for the slaughter of black people by police to stop. Ask how many unarmed blacks were killed by police she said probably hundreds, maybe thousands. Where did she get that idea? I'm for free speech, but I'd prefer the media be a little more honest and less inflammatory. I'd prefer that if they quote somebody they also state the facts instead of using the quote as a fact.; 6/19/20, 6:49 PM
JAORE said...: "It should be just as easy and correct to sue Twitter for libel as it is the NYTimes, but Twitter hides behind section 230 in a way the NYTimes doesn't get to do. That has to change

Bingo. It's really not that hard a concept. It's a publishing version of clown-nose-on, clown-nose-off. It appears to me that those that misread this do so intentionally.; 6/19/20, 7:05 PM
NMObjectivist said...: Since the left now generally opposes free speech and right supports it can I infer those on the right have a higher IQ? Seem right.; 6/19/20, 7:15 PM
Mark said...: Nobody really supports Free [Free to Lie, Free to Threaten, Free to Libel, Free to Yell at the Top of my Lungs] Speech.

When you mischaracterize the issue, it is tough to say what people really think.

Freedom of speech does not include being free to lie.

Freedom goes hand-in-hand with truth. And not just because some guy said 2,000 years ago, "the truth shall set you free."

When speech is a lie, then the speaker and listeners are slaves to that lie and every thought and step thereafter is false and erroneous. They are not free to make informed and knowing and truly voluntary decisions.

One might be free to say that a given destination is "this way," but if that is untrue, then you will not arrive at your destination but will end up wandering in the wilderness. That is not freedom.; 6/19/20, 7:20 PM
GingerBeer said...: "My Son John" was a Communist spy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Son_John; 6/19/20, 7:21 PM
Rabel said...: Maybe, sounds plausible, but their data sucks ass.; 6/19/20, 7:21 PM
Readering said...: Yancey Ward, if AA libels you on her blog you can sue her. If we libel one another in the comments and our moderator only lets yours through I can sue you but not her. What's so bad about that? Same if we both try it on comments feature of NYT. Different if they turn your libelous comment or mine into an edited op-ed.; 6/19/20, 7:24 PM
Two-eyed Jack said...: Free Speech is always a negotiated space (see Stanley Fish), for as Milton points out in Areopagitica, when he calls for tolerance "I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which as it extirpates all religions and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate, provided first that all charitable and compassionate means be used to win and regain the weak and the misled: that also which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or manners no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw itself."
"Free Speech" is always riddled with such carveouts.; 6/19/20, 7:34 PM
Spiros Pappas said...: Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd were former klansmen. The democrats gave these men a chance to repent as racial progressives.; 6/19/20, 7:41 PM
Spiros Pappas said...: Why hasn't Twitter and Facebook and Youtube shadow banned Louis Farrakhan, a vicious anti-semite and racist?; 6/19/20, 7:45 PM
Josephbleau said...: “Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd were former klansmen. The democrats gave these men a chance to repent as racial progressives.l”

That’s more than they give people now who they dox and gleefully get fired, ruining their lives. But the klansmen they take care of.; 6/19/20, 8:56 PM
The Godfather said...: I don't buy the claim that smarter people are more supportive of free speech. If that were so, why would our colleges and universities be the places where free speech is MOST under assault? (Oh, sure, I know that not all academics are highly intelligent, and I know that a lot of the anti-free speech stuff comes from administrators with crap degrees. But the average IQ of the staff of the average university or college is clearly above the national average.)

When I was in college, in the 1960's, the faculty were almost uniformly leftist (not as leftist as they are today, but leftist in terms of the issues of that decade). Yet the U. left us right-wingers alone. We were not persecuted or threatened. I even had professors praise papers I'd written that had a clear right-wing tone.

What's the explanation? I think it's that in the '60's a lot of faculty and deans, etc., had either experienced, or were aware of, persecution of leftists in the preceding decades. From the beginning of the Cold War in the late 1940's, left-wing intellectuals had been subject to attack from the Right. One way to defend yourself against McCarthyism was to embrace free speech (that worked a lot better than arguing that your pro-Red positions were correct).

Today, leftists on the campus have never experienced that kind of "persecution". They have been "in the majority" their entire lives. They have no incentive to tolerate differing opinions, because nobody with differing opinions is in a position to be intolerant of them.; 6/19/20, 10:01 PM
bagoh20 said...: The only way to get smarter is to consider competing ideas. Can you imagine making important life decisions without doing that? Yet, we still need to protect it with the Second Amendment, becuase legal protection for freedom of speech is as rare in the world as intelligence.; 6/19/20, 10:39 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Oh no!

Don’t tell him what his mom does re these threads.; 6/19/20, 11:13 PM
Jupiter said...: Is support for Antarctic expeditions correlated with red hair? Informed citizens want to know!

Turns out, yeah, the Gingers view Antarctic exploration through a somewhat different lens than the rest of us. So, does that mean Gingers are good, or Antarctic exploration is bad?

Remember, in the social sciences, the "level of confidence" sufficient to publish a (peer-reviewed!) (scientific!) paper is 95%. Which means that there is only one chance in 20 that the result is spurious. And social "scientists", who earn their living prowling the databases searching for correlations, find that about one in twenty of the causal linkages they test turn out to be "statistically significant".; 6/19/20, 11:30 PM
Jupiter said...: "Today, leftists on the campus have never experienced that kind of "persecution". They have been "in the majority" their entire lives. They have no incentive to tolerate differing opinions, because nobody with differing opinions is in a position to be intolerant of them."

In the military, this is known as a "target-rich environment".; 6/19/20, 11:31 PM
Birkel said...: Why does a cvnt keep mentioning me?
Cvnts have been wrong at every turn and still pretend that people here will take them seriously.

What a maroon.; 6/19/20, 11:52 PM
Pettifogger said...: It flatters my biases, so it must be true.; 6/19/20, 11:52 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "Yancey Ward, if AA libels you on her blog you can sue her. If we libel one another in the comments and our moderator only lets yours through I can sue you but not her. What's so bad about that?"

She would be, in effect, actively approving and allowing me to libel you, just like the NYTimes would be liable for publishing an op-ed from me, or letter to the paper and published by the paper, that libeled you. I think Althouse is safe because her moderation isn't biased in such a way- she is quite willing to let us libel each other until our hearts are content.

The reason you can't sue Google or Wordpress, though, is that they license their blogging software without restrictions the way Google applies to YouTube, or Twitter and Facebook to their platforms.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter could overcome any changes in 230 by simply not censoring content- full stop- this makes the content providers the fully liable entity. The tech giants don't want to do this, though- they want to censor, and they apply the rules unfairly, which is actually why to they want to do it. Even worse, though, is that they are colluding with third parties who are directly attacking their competitors and shutting them down or greatly hindering their businesses, and this is an anti-trust violation.; 6/20/20, 12:22 AM
Narayanan said...: Correctly speaking ... not support for free speech but demand for freedom to speak

intelligent people demand the freedom to speak because they are secure in their confidence of their views opinions and knowledge.; 6/20/20, 2:12 AM
stlcdr said...: Teagarden got speech, and Inga: generally they - the media, blinkered leftists - will misquote or mischaracterize what others say, or, as above, quote the opinion of someone else as a fact. I’ve seen this on the BBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and all are a distortion, followed by the rather dim witted cohorts quoting these outlets.

Of the right leaning news - there aren’t any mainstream right leaning or centrist media outlets, unfortunately - they simply quote or play the audio and video to the fullest extent, so that common sense context can be applied.

The issue with free speech today, is how the left distorts things and uses it to rile up people with falsehoods, to the point that anyone who even hints at the opposite is met with A destruction of their life and physical violence.; 6/20/20, 6:31 AM
Jamie said...: "Smart people on the left give lip service to free speech."

It seems to me just as likely that smart people know that they should be in favor of freedom of speech (or whatever the principle being studied is), and are smart enough to game the survey thusly. Now, it so happens that attacks on freedom of speech are coming uniformly from the Left these days, so your original statement stands... but at other times, perhaps it's been smart conservatives who were lying about their preferences. (I'm trying to decide about McCarthyism: was it intended to suppress speech or to quell a national security threat, and were the people most involved smart or not? These days we conservatives want Leftists to keep on talking, loudly and publicly, so that everyone can identify their errors.); 6/20/20, 7:41 AM
alanc709 said...: Everyone supports freedom of speech, at least for themselves. For others, the left at best abstains. Most now oppose it. So much for "Everyone supports free speech". It's all in how you phrase the question.; 6/20/20, 8:04 AM
Readering said...: Defamation and anti-trust different issues. I agree anti-trust laws should apply. Although as a lawyer who did a lot of anti-trust defense for a computer giant, i can say they are hard to win for a tech plaintiff.; 6/20/20, 11:33 AM
Birkel said...: I think Readering is correct as to private plaintiffs.

But when the complaint is led by the DOJ Antitrust Division the results go the other way.
The Seventh Circuit did its best to defend businesses (based on a theoretical structure) but I think the Judiciary will rework the standards to reflect reality.

Coase and Posner are wrong in practice, their elegant mathematical models notwithstanding.; 6/20/20, 12:22 PM