Thread: Are Online Death Threats Protected Free Speech

Isn't it amazing that the central tenet missing in modern education is the original driving force behind the first Greek academy system? Socrates had one goal in mind when he held seminars with the inquiring youth of Athens. To discover the truth and to find reason. Socrates pelted his pupils with incessant questions. No matter what answer they provided, he followed it with another question. The Socratic Method of instruction is withering. No answer is taken for granted, and all justifications are questioned. Irrespective of their veracity. Legal education employs this method. No lecture is given. From the start until the finish of class, the professor grilled us relentlessly. The pressure of it could cause the most extroverted student to wither in a quagmire of self-doubt and uncertainty. Now, some law schools have started to abandon the practice. In my mind, that would be a mistake. At its heart, Socratic Method empowers the student to teach themselves. By questioning everything, we force ourselves to understand why a court ruled one way, and whether it might rule that way again under similar circumstances. Without that understanding, a lawyer becomes an ineffective advocate and counselor. It's very much like the scientific method. All learning begins with a question. Research must be conducted to construct an answer. That answer must be formulated as a hypothesis. Then, the hypothesis must be tested, analyzed and repeated, before being communicated to the wider public. This sort of thinking composed the foundation of academia. Truth, in its purest form, is irrefutable. In Socrates's case, irrefutability occurs when the answer possesses such strong reasoning that it cannot be questioned. Therefore, the best instructors empower their pupils to instruct themselves. Ratio et Veritas should be the motto of all educational facilities. Truth and reason are the notions that expand the quest for knowledge, and they encourage the students to become proactive in their personal quest for enlightenment. Sadly, as you pointed out, that spark diminishes under an autonomous system of rote memorization and lecture. Most education today is conducted as a monologue. Monologue is a poor substitute for dialogue. The story of Socrates is an important one, in light of this topic. His method of questioning unsettled the democratic leaders of Athens. He caused the youth of that city to question the existence of the gods. Such speech and questioning might even have undermined the Athenian Council's rightful authority. They just couldn't have that! So, they charged Socrates with the crimes of denying the gods and corrupting the youth of Athens. The public trial was held at the heart of the city. Socrates defended himself ably, with no legal counsel. He argued that public opinion and reputations carry no significance. Rather, only truth and wisdom matter. In that sense, Socrates claimed that Athens would be stronger if they sought to educate themselves. He wanted them to embrace speech and knowledge. Despite his most valiant efforts, the Athenian Council sentenced him to commit suicide by ingesting poison hemlock. I must stress that the only crime Socrates really committed here was that of questioning the youth of Athens to expand their philosophical horizons. In other words, he engaged in free speech. The governmental authority feared that speech, and they ultimately sentenced the 71 year old philosopher to kill himself. It's also important to remember that Athens was a democracy. Which adds to my previous concerns with limiting free speech. Even a democracy can order unjust actions, all in the name of self preservation. That is the sort of risk we run with limiting free speech. If we do not have free speech, the mere quest for knowledge and truth can be criminalized. For the Athenian Council, their actions were justified. Socrates presented a danger to their world view. They earnestly believed his words would unleash divine retribution from Mount Olympus. Therefore, like the ex-wife in this case, they thought his speech would bring imminent harm and death. Of course, the ex-wife's fears are more justified than the Athenian Council's. Nevertheless, I'm merely attempting to demonstrate that even reasonable fears can result in horrific consequences, if we do not proceed with caution. Of course, the Athenian Council was wrong. They didn't protect their citizens. Instead, they killed their greatest philosopher in a superstitious response to their unfounded fears. All restrictions of free speech carry the real risk of repeating the trial and death of Socrates. Which is why we must be exceedingly cautious with this issue.