Free Speech On The Internet The Crisis Of Epistemic Authority

A new article from the Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Future of Free Speech Symposium. The article is here; the introductory section: Every society has mechanisms for inculcating in its citizens beliefs about the world, about what is supposedly true and known. These epistemological mechanisms include, most prominently, the mass media, the educational system, and the courts. Sometimes these social mechanisms inculcate true beliefs, sometimes false ones, and most often a mix. What the vast majority believe to be true about the world (sometimes even when it is not) is crucial for social peace and political stability, whether the society is democratic or not.

In developed capitalist countries that are relatively free from political repression, like the United States, these social mechanisms have, until recently, operated in predictable ways. They insured that most people accepted the legitimacy of their socioeconomic system, that they acquiesced to the economic hierarchy in which they found themselves, that they accepted the official results of elections, and that... Although ruling elites throughout history have always aimed to inculcate moral and political beliefs in their subject populations conducive to their own continued rule, it has also been true, especially in the world after... One cannot extract wealth from nature, let alone take precautions against physical or biological catastrophe, unless one understands how the natural world actually works: what earthquakes do, how disease spreads, where fossil fuels are... This is, no doubt, why both authoritarian regimes (like the one in China) and neoliberal democratic regimes (like the one in the United States) invest so heavily in the physical and biological sciences. In the half-century before the dominance of the internet in America (roughly from World War II until around 2000), the most prominent epistemological mechanisms in society generally helped ensure that a world of causal...

There were, of course, exceptions: the panic over fluoridation of water in the 1950s is the most obvious example, but it was also anomalous. Even false claims about race and gender (that were widespread in the traditional media until the 1960s and 1970s) were met with more resistance from the pre-internet media, especially from the 1960s onwards. The basic pattern, however, was clear: social mechanisms inculcated many true beliefs about how the natural world works, while performing much more unevenly where powerful social and economic interests were at stake. �`j��`�8���T����]K�(�N�\�6�6d�P�4���_F-�@���ǻ�P�u�~���J�1�NCH-�F��_qD��P���%��0\e��Mt�H�A���^h�9�e�tnrH}�Ź|µv��Ϟn�ܦ�<԰K�{[��Žb�vtB�����o���d �����;C�Q6z�?I�8���~#�6���\1�.x��li���_��m�m�n�s๜XK��m���qM4 �{���%r��di/���WN���\x���}jj�+樞] ,WWU1�2ΰeDǜhn�T��Q;�>77Ww�r�^������h�WL�B�ӕ Uc��� k���ͳ*��b��X���gs�ee��n 3oSׅ���ך<1ک������(�����P�`g�E�Ū=bݐ %{�QE�f��f�����-�g�G��� {M���>�Η��l� ��N�� ���n��f˕n�)c��Mp�d���7��.�q�(�� 콘��~����z���ǫ�/Y�N��U��������8��x���á)����y����99��}tFX��;��W�s�������Ź�^��?�rI�1rF"�}4�(�o��y^8r���qU�Iu| ����K҈˫�>k�~��������sm:t�]�4�����u��Ti�x4zG���Y���k
��pu���
�{
�� �V��c�~{z�fLW�gg�Ї���1�_|xe�޴A�"����a��'ߕ#Hz
l�_����������N �<��=�m�U � =�"� �vė�o����b��j���1�~�<6��\��KR�i����4��A(�I�=l��h]�%!V��[]���\� ��k��X�MoSb8R�׏F� *��"�'RA���I��m���m��,�>m���5˵��]oT���� �6����� ��&�3��|� Ѐ%do$� = 3(���#�k3�}fv����>stream h��[�v�8���?��V��y
�`�+�_b�津T&灢 �m�T�T\��~�����dŒl�-��g�X�H��ύ�3�š`�>�c�O�d��T!>C&c��X�k|j�}:3-�{�3�
��@ 2�S��q��H1j�*d<�X6�0P4ЌkE��L�
��>!i�8��
"��Z2�8f֊���U! �`a�#:Y3�sb �c��/1�H� Hk�
A�
p$@�"�
��/�ͤ$������R)N#�QlG@8�HL�~L#�T٣�)�D��)��B`KI#�B�\�0$+��-��g��# IN���E��F�E1��H�hJ�(d:h�FAo�`����aԈ�� h�9��4 7�RYc����_5... �� ���9�o��6N��8�<)s�[O��QQG�D:&�G�N�$]�dt�u'Pݸ�]����5p^�y��e⚫8D�<���-�"$2��~ 6��f"͙N?���] 6+5C�n����l.>���q�< 7��+�w׻kײ�C��/��/~L���
u�W����� ��?�_�(p9�W���Pf�,��Ղ_�?�_�G�IIw FmҾ��X8�W I�nI�Wc8rj30t 4��O��uN�� �`�E| w��w�by��}�j����}�kyK�Ǜ(Vg"́~' _�aW�pn�sc �����wmO�G�9R�Rܙ"�ݘ^����]0)Pl� FW�� ˏ�uV� ���E�������y��;��%��8��6���^祷�����!=iN��x,x\�m��T�����vJ� r���_fU���e�_}��]��[�-��l������ �>������-m���|���,N�Υ��n��E���M�3���$�t��양`��>�Y��V�/��L�i�[��BȓG�b�������������Ӈ�;������7�Q+�2,P�+ҏ�[� {���la�I4������� �jIn!� ɣ1�@��~�Ҭ�f��nT�9���l�$BD� 0R�p�呇�"\��x�g�$�w����>/���D�6i�}�t� �� �'�2ľ_�R⹳���믶�^n���!L�=�]�Z���7��r*ӜU�U溾��[&���^T�W�i��螌�?�Q��j3B�>stream h��[m��������af�� \%�����.�OeYR9�-M����%y$�k�ק
�bF^i��KU�
�`�F�7�d%*)@U���Еu�rֆ����A?K�-��BZ����aXP� � s�%� -U)�"�+e\xM�b�V�ɈB�%bha�U\ ]�A���F�u��>�s�2� �hZ�7����q�2�c�VƩ@m�ʸ���*�u��6��� �^T D�e2��UV����qo�T�E��� ��o@��XH-��Ȱ�wb\�؄.�!���R:�d崍-U9... OriginalDocumentID URI http://www.aiim.org/pdfua/ns/id/ pdfuaid PDF/UA ID Schema internal Part of PDF/UA standard part Integer endstream endobj 260 0 obj <> endobj xref 0 1150 0000000000 65535 f 0000136283 00000 n 0000136548 00000 n 0000136669...

Reason.com is the leading libertarian magazine covering news, politics, science, culture, and more through articles, videos, and podcasts. The article is here; the introductory section: Every society has mechanisms for inculcating in its citizens beliefs about the world, about what is supposedly true and known. These epistemological mechanisms include, most prominently, the mass media, the educational system, and the courts. Sometimes these social mechanisms inculcate true beliefs, sometimes false ones, and most often a mix. What the vast majority believe to be true about the world (sometimes even when it is not) is crucial for social peace and political stability, whether the society is democratic or not.

In developed capitalist countries that are relatively free from political repression, like the United States, these social mechanisms have, until recently, operated in predictable ways. They insured that most people accepted the legitimacy of their socioeconomic system, that they acquiesced to the economic hierarchy in which they found themselves, that they accepted the official results of elections, and that... Although ruling elites throughout history have always aimed to inculcate moral and political beliefs in their subject populations conducive to their own continued rule, it has also been true, especially in the world after... One cannot extract wealth from nature, let alone take precautions against physical or biological catastrophe, unless one understands how the natural world actually works: what earthquakes do, how disease spreads, where fossil fuels are... This is, no doubt, why both authoritarian regimes (like the one in China) and neoliberal democratic regimes (like the one in the United States) invest so heavily in the physical and biological sciences. In the half-century before the dominance of the internet in America (roughly from World War II until around 2000), the most prominent epistemological mechanisms in society generally helped ensure that a world of causal...

There were, of course, exceptions: the panic over fluoridation of water in the 1950s is the most obvious example, but it was also anomalous. Even false claims about race and gender (that were widespread in the traditional media until the 1960s and 1970s) were met with more resistance from the pre-internet media, especially from the 1960s onwards. The basic pattern, however, was clear: social mechanisms inculcated many true beliefs about how the natural world works, while performing much more unevenly where powerful social and economic interests were at stake. The HLS Law & Philosophy Society will host Professor Leiter to present his paper “Free Speech on the Internet: The Crisis of Epistemic Authority.” Professor Leiter‘s presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. Much of our knowledge of the world comes not from direct sensory experience, but from reliance on epistemic authorities, individuals or institutions that tell us what we ought to believe. For example, what most of us believe about natural selection, climate change or the Holocaust comes from our reliance on epistemic authorities (scientists, historians).

Sustaining epistemic authority depends, crucially, on social institutions that inculcate reliable second-order norms about whom to believe about what. The traditional media has been crucial in promulgating and sustaining such norms. The Internet has obliterated the intermediaries who made that possible, and, in the process, undermined the epistemic standing of actual experts. This has been a particularly acute problem in the United States. I consider some possible changes to existing free speech doctrine in the U.S. to remedy the epistemological crisis brought about by the Internet.

Copyright © 2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard College Accessibility | Digital Accessibility | Trademark Notice | Privacy and Copyright | Harvard Law School The article is here; the introductory section: Every society has mechanisms for inculcating in its citizens beliefs about the world, about what is supposedly true and known. These epistemological mechanisms include, most prominently, the mass media, the educational system, and the courts. Sometimes these social mechanisms inculcate true beliefs, sometimes false ones, and most often a mix.

What the vast majority believe to be true about the world (sometimes even when it is not) is crucial for social peace and political stability, whether the society is democratic or not. In developed capitalist countries that are relatively free from political repression, like the United States, these social mechanisms have, until recently, operated in predictable ways. They insured that most people accepted the legitimacy of their socioeconomic system, that they acquiesced to the economic hierarchy in which they found themselves, that they accepted the official results of elections, and that... Although ruling elites throughout history have always aimed to inculcate moral and political beliefs in their subject populations conducive to their own continued rule, it has also been true, especially in the world after... One cannot extract wealth from nature, let alone take precautions against physical or biological catastrophe, unless one understands how the natural world actually works: what earthquakes do, how disease spreads, where fossil fuels are... This is, no doubt, why both authoritarian regimes (like the one in China) and neoliberal democratic regimes (like the one in the United States) invest so heavily in the physical and biological sciences.

In the half-century before the dominance of the internet in America (roughly from World War II until around 2000), the most prominent epistemological mechanisms in society generally helped ensure that a world of causal... There were, of course, exceptions: the panic over fluoridation of water in the 1950s is the most obvious example, but it was also anomalous. Even false claims about race and gender (that were widespread in the traditional media until the 1960s and 1970s) were met with more resistance from the pre-internet media, especially from the 1960s onwards. The basic pattern, however, was clear: social mechanisms inculcated many true beliefs about how the natural world works, while performing much more unevenly where powerful social and economic interests were at stake. The internet has upended this state of affairs: it is the epistemological catastrophe of our time, locking into place mechanisms that ensure that millions of people (perhaps hundreds of millions) will have false beliefs... Indeed, a distinguishing and dangerous achievement of the internet era has been to discredit the idea of "expertise," the idea that if experts believe something to be the case, that is a reason for...

Experts, in this parallel cyber world, are disguised partisans, conspirators, and pretenders to epistemic privilege, while the actual partisans and conspirators are supposed to be the purveyors of knowledge. Radical changes in how we communicate with each other and the ease of manipulating audiences have put our shared principles of free speech at risk. But have Americans lost their appetite for open and constructive dialogue? Or has the rallying cry of “freedom of speech” itself been repurposed to censor and disempower? “The Future of Free Speech” explores the complexity and conflicts of the moment, and reminds us that it takes continued practice and determination to live in a society that embraces free and open discourse... In On Liberty, published in 1859, John Stuart Mill argues for the “absolute” protection of the “liberty of thought and discussion.” Ever the empiricist, he maintains that such uncompromised freedom, not for all communication...

The advent of digital technology has altered how thought and discussion is generated, distributed, and received in ways that might problematize some of the empirical assumptions upon which Mill’s argument in On Liberty is... This essay explores whether the reasons he advances for the absolute liberty of thought and discussion continue to have purchase in the face of the changed empirical domain in which Mill’s cherished activities of... Content moderation is typically viewed as an affront to free expression. When companies remove online abuse, they face accusations of censorship. Lost in the discussion is the fact that victims of intimate privacy violations and cyberstalking typically—and regrettably—withdraw from on- and offline activities. Online assaults chase targeted individuals offline; they silence victims.

Content moderation can secure opportunities for people to speak. Legal and corporate prohibitions against intimate privacy violations and cyberstalking can help provide the reassurance that victims need to stay online. They can endow individuals with a sense of trust so they continue to use networked technologies to express themselves. Those prohibitions are consonant with First Amendment doctrine and free speech values. Combating online abuse isn’t a zero-sum game with free speech as the loser. Rather, it can free us to speak by changing the culture that rewards abuse and encourages self-censorship.

People Also Search

• Free Speech on the Internet: The Crisis of Epistemic Authority
• Journal of Free Speech Law: "Free Speech on the Internet: The Crisis of ...
• PDF The Epistemology of the Internet and the Regulation of Speech in America
• Brian Leiter, "Free Speech on the Internet: The Crisis of Epistemic ...
• Journal of Free Speech Law: "Free Speech on the… - inkl
• The Future of Free Speech - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
• PDF Free Speech on The Internet: the Crisis of Epistemic Authority