Opinions

              “To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is as assumption of infallibility.” - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

              The nineteenth century philosopher, quoted above, discussed the nature of freedom of speech and its impact on society, among other things. One idea that I have wrestled with is the polarizing opinions that seem to dominate discussion. This problem manifests itself on the freedom and censorship of speech on the internet. This conundrum has led to the digital powers that be to censor those whose opinions seem detrimental to society. I will admit that I agree with their opinion, but as I learn more about the nature of liberty, I know that this action is not moral.

              Even though I believe that everyone should be able to express their opinion, I do not want those opinions that incite violence or hateful actions to be what people are exposed to. How do I solve this problem without violating a true liberty of thought? John Stuart Mill also has an answer for this, and it would translate now to a change in penal code. He essentially argues that true liberty or freedom is the ability to do whatever you want of your own volition, so long is does not cause harm to another person. I like this definition, and it can be applied to hate speech online. If someone says something that causes no harm, they can say it as much as they want. However, if what they say causes someone to, say, open fire in a pizza shop, they have caused harm to another, and should be criminally penalized according to the harm done.

One way to stop the dominance of “inciteful” speech is for people who have a more informed, insightful, and progressive opinion of human nature and their fellow man to speak their opinions more often. If more people talked about the good we could do for one another, or the moral behavior that we see and experience, the harder it would be to hear the less educated and more fallible opinions of others. This is more important with the internet than it was 200 years ago, when philosophers wrestled with this question. However, because there is so much speech out there for people to find, and we tend to find what we agree with, it is more important than ever for the educated and informed to speak up.

              Another potential solution to the problem of uneducated and hateful opinions is to allow those who have opposing facts to express their views at the source of the speech. Echo chambers are the exact opposite of this, and need to be dealt with (I’m not sure how that would work, yet). It is cowardice, according to John Stuart Mill, to express your opinions and not invite criticism or dissenting opinions. I have seen an example of how this could be counteracted when someone posted a video on YouTube about chem trails, and someone commented with a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica that explained why chem trails are not a thing, and what they really are, including the scientific explanation.

              This novel solution leads me to another solution that can be implemented on the internet without much fuss, which is that if you publish an opinion you have sources, or at least links to reliable sources, that support your point of view. This could be easily integrated with another section that allows dissenters to provide their own sources and facts. It is only through this discourse of ideas that the truth, and better standards of behavior, can be discovered and implemented.

              Discourse, meaningful discourse, is they pathway to enlightenment. I don’t know if anyone has said this, but I believe it to be true. This is hard to swallow as someone who considers themselves educated, because I am allergic to stupidity, and the internet is dripping with it. However, I wish for no one anything other than I would wish for myself. I would like to live my life happily and with my own choices and sense of morals dictating my behavior. This means that everyone else is entitled to the same unadulterated liberty. However, I would wish for people to have informed opinions and share those opinions formally when articulated and supported by a variety of independent, reliable sources. This is all because I think each person should leave the world a better, more civilized place than they found it.

              So what does this mean for the direction of the press in the wake of this polarization? Please, oh please, report on the stories that matter and inform people about the better angels of our nature, and hold accountable those who use fearmongering and factless opinions to sway those of others. The press’s freedom is inviolable, and with that power comes great responsibility. I have faith in the institution of the press, and would love if they proved worthy of this faith. There are more than two extreme arguments, but you wouldn’t know that with the temperature of the news cycle. Not all mediums are guilty of this at all times, and there are some true journalists out there, but polarization and sensationalism has been the trend with the evolution of the 24-hour news cycle. The press has a responsibility to create an informed electorate; a well-rounded, educated brand of informed, in my humble opinion.