How should you react to speech you disagree with?

Disagreements should not equal censorship.

NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS: The answer to speech we do not like is more speech. Not censoring the person we don't want to hear or punishing the person we don't want to hear.
There's a difference between defending an important principle and advocating for the implications of that principle. Let me give you a couple of examples. One example is defending the freedom of expression. Even though you disagree with what someone might say when they exercise that freedom. So, for example, I might defend your right to speak. I might defend your right to express yourself without fear of losing your job, for example. But I might still not agree with whatever it is that you're going to say. So you say something I don't like. I don't like it, I respond to it. That's the proper way to handle it.That is to say we defend the right of people to express themselves even though we acknowledge that the outcome of that might not be what we agree with. So the famous saying, of course, is I don't agree with what it is that you want to say but I will defend your right to say it to the death.
Another related example of this, for instance, is the defense of contested elections. We might say we really want if there are going to be important roles in universities or in our society we want free and open elections. And we want contesting candidates. We don't want one candidate that everyone has to either vote for or not vote for. We want elections to be contested. We should defend that principle even if we don't like the outcome of the vote. To defend that principle doesn't mean you're endorsing a particular candidate. It just means you're defending the principle of open contested elections. And if you don't like the fact that someone you don't want might win, the right strategy is not to prevent fair elections. Only in totalitarian or authoritarian governments do we do that. We don't want to risk that someone who we don't approve of will win. Therefore, we don't have free elections. So again, there's often a confusion between defending the principle of free expression or the principle of contested elections and a conflation of those defending the, and a conflation of defending that principle with defending the content of what someone might say or defending the candidates that might be running. Of course those are two very different things.
You test your ideas by arguing with people who disagree with you and actually if you're good at it you even learn to enjoy it. Some of the most fun I have in life is arguing with a good friend of mine who has ideas that are very different than my own. And I enjoy it so much. And often I talk to him and I'm like, you know, he's right. And my beliefs don't have a very sound foundation. And I wouldn't have discovered that if I hadn't actually engaged in an argument with him. And we enjoy each other's company tremendously and he has very provocative ideas. For example, he thinks you should be able to sell your right to vote or he thinks that the citizen should be able to sell who they vote for. And I think this is a totally preposterous idea that it's so anti-democratic and subverts a very key principle of our society. But in arguing with him about this I think I may move the needle a little with him and he makes it harder for me to recognize well what is the source of my belief. What is my objection to his idea. It makes you think harder even about things you take for granted.

  • Defending someone's right to speak does not mean that you have to agree with what they say. The correct response is not censorship, but more discussion.
  • Physician and sociologist Nicholas Christakis argues that in politics, defending the principle of a contested election is not the same as agreeing with or endorsing a candidate. "We should defend that principle even if we don't like the outcome of the vote."
  • The best way to test your ideas and beliefs is to argue them against someone with a different stance/point-of-view.



Live on Thursday: Learn innovation with 3-star Michelin chef Dominique Crenn

Dominique Crenn, the only female chef in America with three Michelin stars, joins Big Think Live this Thursday at 1pm ET.

Big Think LIVE

Add event to your calendar

AppleGoogleOffice 365OutlookOutlook.comYahoo


Keep reading Show less

A new minimoon is headed towards Earth, and it’s not natural

Astronomers spot an object heading into Earth orbit.

Credit: PHOTOCREO Michal Bednarek/Paitoon Pornsuksomboon/Shutterstock/Big Think
Surprising Science
  • Small objects such as asteroids get trapped for a time in Earth orbit, becoming "minimoons."
  • Minimoons are typically asteroids, but this one is something else.
  • The new minimoon may be part of an old rocket from the 1960s.
  • Keep reading Show less

    Can we resurrect the dead? Researchers catalogue potential future methods

    From cryonics to time travel, here are some of the (highly speculative) methods that might someday be used to bring people back to life.

    Credit: Pixabay
    Mind & Brain
    • Alexey Turchin and Maxim Chernyakov, researchers belonging to the transhumanism movement, wrote a paper outlining the main ways technology might someday make resurrection possible.
    • The methods are highly speculative, ranging from cryonics to digital reconstruction of individual personalities.
    • Surveys suggest most people would not choose to live forever if given the option.
    Keep reading Show less

    Airspeeder's ‘flying car’ racers to be shielded by virtual force-fields

    Welcome to the world's newest motorsport: manned multicopter races that exceed speeds of 100 mph.

    Credit: Airspeeder
    Technology & Innovation
    • Airspeeder is a company that aims to put on high-speed races featuring electric flying vehicles.
    • The so-called Speeders are able to fly at speeds of up to 120 mph.
    • The motorsport aims to help advance the electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) sector, which could usher in the age of air taxis.
    Keep reading Show less

    The spread of ancient infectious diseases offers insight into COVID-19

    Archaeology clues us in on the dangers of letting viruses hang around.

    Credit: ImageFlow/ Shutterstock
    Surprising Science
    • A University of Otago researcher investigates the spread of disease in ancient Vietnam.
    • The infectious disease, yaws, has been with us for thousands of years with no known cure.
    • Using archaeology to investigate disease offers clues into modern-day pandemics.
    Keep reading Show less
    Quantcast