Our Freedom of Expression Is Killing Us

[patrice]

57. Like any ideology, an absolute formulated as "We need more speech, not less" seems to be based

upon an abstracted value, which in this case could be characterized as how more freedom and more anarchy will net out in progression NOT regression, a wild-ass assumption abstracted from, to all intents and purposes, an infinite number of factors.

If I understand correctly, it is assumed that more speech will serve the cause of truth and is, therefore, justified by the value of reality itself.

I think that could be true, if we have enough time and luck to evolve and develop long enough that the best forms and apprehensions are actually distilled from any and all errors. What is the likelihood that we have that kind of time and luck?

I consider it more likely that we do not have enough time for "more speech" to progress our understanding to that point and I'd be willing to bet that the unlimited "freedom of expression"* cohort doesn't expect that either, so their position is predicated on something other than an ultimate priority placed upon truth.

Isn't this hypothesis supported by the fact that the failure to recognize how one's "freedom of expression" may very possibly not be derived from freedom at all, but rather that what one desires to express is more likely an expression of one type or another that prioritizes something other than liberating truth and is inherently, thus, very possibly an expression of one's own slavery to one's own biases? Could "freedom of expression" just simply be a drive toward power? - especially given the likelihood of the limitations that time places upon our evolution toward authentic truths?

This is my problem with the unlimited "freedom of expression" position: 1. Given the limitations imposed by time, unlimited "freedom of expression" appears to ignore the very likely fact that freedom of expression can result in regressions that oppress progress toward the most truth for the most people. 2. Since truth is, apparently, not the objective, the only other obvious goal is power to assert one's own biases, i.e. fascism in one degree or another.

Failure to recognize that words are not the same thing as what words only refer to causes people to mistake words for The Truth and, hence, lose the very validity and reliability that they claim in those words and, since this is an unavoidable problem, I wouldn't mind people doing this in the name of "freedom of expression" if they'd honestly recognize what is that they are doing up front and straight up as part of their expression, instead of, at least to my mind, claiming power that is not theirs to claim.

*It's a little false to talk about "freedom of expression" under a Constitutional Amendment, the 1st, that is limited to speech that is not equal to "shouting fire in a darkened crowded theater, with missing or poorly marked exits", that is, speech which increases the possibility of danger to people who could reasonably expect otherwise, i.e. less danger, is NOT legal in the USA.