From: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: The Mythical Marketplace of Ideas
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:53:02 GMT
Reply-To: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca



I'm having a hard time collecting my ideas in this post, in part because I  
don't want to rehash old ideas that have been floating around soc.motss  
already. Yet, I feel compelled to express the tension I feel within myself  
after reading the article "Help Stop the KKK".

What it really comes down to is the concept of the "Marketplace of Ideas"  
- the global forum, with its outlets in literature, television,  
newspapers, computer networks and countless other media, which supposedly  
serves as a crucible for the formation, rejection and refinement of ideas  
and philosophies. In an ideal world, this marketplace would be truly free;  
anyone with any idea would be welcome to express it, and it would either  
stand or fall on its own merit.

In such an environment, censorship - of any kind whatsoever - would be  
irrelevant. There would be no risk in allowing the expression of anything,  
be it hateful, criminal, or otherwise distasteful, because there would  
always be a wealth of counterarguments waiting to confront it. This is the  
kind of world some would have Western society aspire to. But is it  
possible? Would it really work?

Taking one extreme, organizations like the KKK should not be hindered from  
presenting and arguing in favor of their ideas. Indeed, even an  
"associaion of serial infant axe-murderers" would be welcome to present  
their case. Perhaps it could be argued that people are not rational in the  
construction of their own belief systems and must be, for the good of  
society, protected from "pathological" ideas that might lead them towards  
destructive behavior. The existence of television evangelism is excellent  
evidence for the validity of this argument. Yet, it might be countered by  
the observation that ideas are essentially unstoppable, and that any  
person that wanted to subscribe to the ideals of the "association of  
serial infant axe-murderers" would seek out the same information anyway,  
whether it were legal or not. This line of reasoning steers away from  
censorship of any sort.

At the other lies the belief that, since ideas are inherently powerful, it  
is to the benefit of society (or the powerful) that they be controlled.  
The obvious question is, who shall control them? The answer: whoever is  
able to. If ideas are instruments of control, then the freedom to express  
ideas becomes a commodity to be fought for. In such an environment, any  
argument against "censorship" is specious; censorship is assumed, and if  
any group wishes to express unpopular thoughts, they must fight for that  
right.

Unfortunately, any middle ground is hard to come by. Ideas are either  
something to be expressed freely, or they are not. Yet we sit, rather  
uncomfortably, on an ill-defined fence. It is not consistent to argue  
against censorship while attempting to censor other groups, unless one  
adapts a childish "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude which I refuse to  
accept. Yet this inconsistency is rampant in the gay liberation movement,  
the feminist movement, and the racial equality movement. 

In resolving this inconsistency, I see only two options for us. Either we  
accept the expression of ideas we do not like, or we acknowledge that the  
control of ideas is a grail to be fought for, and abandon any pretense of  
rejecting censorship. Neither option seems particularly palatable, but  
this business of demanding free expression of our own ideas while  
repressing those of others strikes me as sheer hypocrisy. Like it or not,  
the arguments raised against our very lives are not trivially dismissed,  
as wrong as we may know them to be in our hearts. We cannot say for  
certain that current gay political thinking is "right" while the rest of  
the world is "wrong". Anyone who believes that has a complete lack of  
understanding of our opponents. (The lack of consensus even within the gay  
community should make this clear!) We cannot hold ourselves above our  
challengers, any more than they can hold themselves above us. Thus,  
censorship must be an all or nothing thing, with the same standards  
applied to both sides. Either we promote the full blown, completely open  
marketplace, or we acknowledge the need for censorship and fight to make  
ourselves the censors.

Personally, I am a believer in the marketplace of ideas. As such, I oppose  
censorship of all kinds, even the censorship of my enemies. As such, while  
I might engage in counter-protests, the call to "drown out" the KKK  
strikes me as reprehensible.

But believe me, I am in no way comfortable about it.

-Anthony

Newsgroups: soc.motss