Censorship, cancel culture, and truth-seeking (with Iona Italia)

May 24, 2023 Episode Page ↗
Overview

Spencer Greenberg speaks with Iona Italia about the critical need for free speech, its narrow exceptions, and the dangers of censorship. They also discuss the importance of opinion diversity for societal progress and the impact of religious ritual.

At a Glance
15 Insights
1h 6m Duration
14 Topics
9 Concepts

Deep Dive Analysis

Free Speech Absolutism and its Narrow Exceptions

Distinguishing Opinion from Calls to Specific Action

Pragmatic and Moral Justifications for Free Speech

The Natural Societal Pressure Towards Censorship

The Importance of Hearing Disagreeable Ideas

Words, Attitudes, and the N-Word Discussion

Harm vs. Offense as Justification for Censorship

The Role of Info Hazards and Controversial Research

Conditions for Truth to Prevail in Society

Critique of Hindu Nationalism and its Appeal

The Role and Impact of Religion in Modern Society

Historical Evolution of Religious Morality

Spirituality, Community, and Secular Alternatives

The Value and Pitfalls of Insurance

Free Speech Absolutism

This position advocates for the free expression of opinion and artistic creation, with very narrow exceptions. These exceptions are typically limited to specific calls to action, such as incitement to violence, fraud, or slander, rather than expressions of belief or critical viewpoints.

Opinion vs. Call to Action

An opinion is an expression of one's belief or viewpoint, whereas a call to action is a direct instruction or suggestion for others to perform a specific act. The distinction is crucial in free speech debates, as calls for specific harm (e.g., firing, blacklisting) are often considered outside the scope of protected opinion.

Moral Entropy (in censorship)

This concept suggests that there is a natural, inherent tendency for power dynamics to push societies towards greater censorship. People in positions of power, or even peer groups, often prefer not to hear uncomfortable or unflattering opinions, leading to a continuous fight required to defend freedom of expression.

Pragmatic Justification for Free Speech

This argument asserts that free expression is beneficial for societal progress and well-being. Historically, societies with greater political liberalism and freedom of expression tend to be more prosperous and flourishing, as the ability to question authority is fundamental to all forms of progress.

Info Hazard

An info hazard refers to specific pieces of true information that, if widely disseminated, could cause harm. Examples include instructions for making dangerous devices or sensitive state secrets. While acknowledging their existence, the general stance is that the need for accurate knowledge usually outweighs the risks of an info hazard for expressions of opinion.

Opinion Diversity

This refers to the value of having a wide range of differing opinions and viewpoints within a society. It is considered essential for stress-testing ideas and policies, providing necessary pushback against prevailing thoughts, and ultimately leading to more robust and accurate societal understanding.

Hindu Nationalism

As described, this is a 'blood and soil' ideology where a citizen's worth, rights, and privileges are determined by unchosen characteristics like religion. It is seen as a fascist ideology that undermines universal human rights by allowing the oppression of minorities by a majority.

Concave Utility Function (money)

This economic principle describes how the psychological value or satisfaction (utility) derived from each additional unit of money decreases as one's total wealth increases. Conversely, the negative impact (disutility) of losing money becomes disproportionately greater as the amount lost increases, making large losses catastrophic.

Hedging against Tail Risk

This strategy involves taking measures, such as purchasing insurance, to mitigate the potential impact of rare but severe negative events. Even if such insurance results in a net financial loss on average, it can increase overall utility by providing peace of mind and protecting against catastrophic outcomes due to the concave utility of money.

?
What are the narrow exceptions to free speech?

Exceptions to free speech are typically limited to specific calls to action, such as incitement to violence, fraud, or slander, rather than expressions of opinion or artistic creation.

?
How can society resist the natural tendency towards censorship?

Society must continually fight to defend freedom of expression, as the natural pressure from those in power (including peer groups) is always towards censorship of uncomfortable or unflattering opinions.

?
Is feeling harmed or offended a valid reason to censor speech?

No, feeling harmed or offended is not considered a sufficient justification for censorship, as it is too weak a definition of harm. While people may feel psychological hurt, this should not grant them a claim to materially harm the speaker or censor their views.

?
Do words create attitudes, or do they reflect them?

Words primarily reflect attitudes rather than creating them. Focusing on forcing people to use different language to change their opinions is seen as backwards; the goal should be to influence the underlying sentiments.

?
Are there truths that are too harmful to spread?

While there are 'info hazards' (e.g., how to make a nuclear bomb, state secrets, spoilers), the need for accurate knowledge generally supersedes concerns about harmful truths when it comes to expressions of opinion, as knowing the truth is usually better for fixing problems.

?
What are the necessary conditions for truth to win out in society?

For truth to win, society needs free speech as a bedrock, along with a recognition of opinion diversity, a healthy two-party system, and the stress-testing of ideas. Universal human rights are also crucial to prevent democracy from devolving into mob rule.

?
Why are populist or fascist ideologies appealing to people?

These ideologies appeal to people's desire to feel part of something larger than themselves, to feel important, meaningful, and heroic, often through a national or group narrative that transcends individual circumstances.

?
What is the value of religion in modern society?

While religion is seen as a 'net bad' due to obstructing truth and being amoral, it provides significant social benefits by fulfilling people's needs for community and support, which secular alternatives often fail to provide adequately.

?
Is insurance always a good idea?

No, not all insurance is a good idea, as some policies are mispriced or play on fears. However, insurance can be valuable for hedging against catastrophic 'tail risks' due to the concave utility of money, offering peace of mind, and leveraging collective negotiating power for better deals.

1. Prioritize Duty to Truth

When something is both true and important, feel a moral imperative to say it, even if it upsets others, because the duty to truth supersedes sparing feelings.

2. Continually Defend Free Expression

Actively fight to defend freedom of expression, as the natural tendency of power is towards greater censorship, which will otherwise erode these freedoms.

3. Apply Free Speech Thought Experiment

When considering restricting speech, imagine if your ideological opponents were in power and applying the same restrictions to your speech to understand the precedent being set.

4. Seek Disagreeable Opinions

Actively listen to and seek out opinions you find harmful or disagreeable, as you can often learn something valuable from them and avoid patronizing censorship.

5. Embrace Opinion Diversity

Recognize and value opinion diversity, including the existence of opposition and pushback against your own ideas, because this stress testing is vital for progress.

6. Discourage Calls for Individual Harm

Establish a strong societal norm against trying to cause harm to specific individuals, such as calling for them to be fired or their books to be pulped, and disapprove of those making such calls.

7. Employer Protocol for Mobs

Universities and employers should implement a mandatory cooling-off period (24-48 hours) before responding to social media mobs and avoid firing or canceling based solely on the number of complaints.

8. Employer Upholds Free Speech

The onus is on employers not to fire people simply based on opinions, especially those voiced on social media, to maintain norms of free expression.

9. Influence Sentiment, Not Words

When addressing offensive language, focus on changing the underlying negative sentiments or feelings that motivate such words, rather than merely policing the words themselves.

10. Reject Offense as Censorship Justification

Do not accept “feeling harmed” as a sufficient justification for censorship, as it is too weak a definition of harm and can be used to justify violence.

11. Prioritize Accurate Knowledge

Always strive for accurate knowledge, as it is easier to fix problems and deal with things effectively when you have a clear understanding of the truth.

12. Careful Communication of Controversial Research

If conducting controversial research, take extra care in how you present findings and provide proper education to ensure people understand them correctly and mitigate misuse.

13. Desire Better Political Opposition

Instead of hoping political opponents fail, desire for them to be better and provide a healthy outlet for diverse thinking, which leads to a more robust societal discourse.

14. Embrace Painful Truths for Growth

Strive to know what is true, even when the truth is personally deeply painful, as this pursuit of knowledge is almost always worth it for personal understanding and growth.

15. Find Secular Community Alternatives

Actively seek out and engage with secular alternatives for community and social needs, such as hobbies like dancing, Star Trek, or chess, to fill gaps often provided by religious institutions.

I am a freedom of expression absolutist.

Iona Italia

I think you should be allowed to call for people to be fired. The onus is on the employer not to fire people on the basis simply of opinions, especially opinions voiced on social media.

Iona Italia

I personally want to hear it. And I don't want someone else to decide on my behalf, well, I've pre-listened to this and you can't hear this because I've decided this would be harmful to you. I find that extremely patronizing.

Iona Italia

I'm even skeptical as to whether they actually feel harmed, to be honest. I think that may be a politically expedient sort of manufactured tool, that claim. But I certainly think they're feeling harmed is definitely not a justification for censorship.

Iona Italia

I think that one of the problems is that religion is much more often a hindrance to morality than a help to it.

Iona Italia
83%
Percentage of people who found specific practical, rarely asked questions valuable to answer Based on a series of five scientific studies by Clearer Thinking.
78%
Percentage of people who would recommend these questions to others Based on a series of five scientific studies by Clearer Thinking.
88%
Percentage of people who enjoyed answering these questions Based on a series of five scientific studies by Clearer Thinking.