Why the “marketplace of ideas” is a failed concept
There’s a reason the above title focuses on “the marketplace of ideas” and not on the concept of “free speech” nor on “the First Amendment”. Free speech is a fine and pro-social principle. So is the First Amendment. My intent with this essay is to convince some of you to re-examine your ideas about the implementation of free speech in a just, successful, and healthy democratic society.
Specifically, this essay is aimed squarely at the leadership of The Satanic Temple: its general membership, its chapter membership, its chapter leaders, its national council, and most especially, its executive ministry. But the content of this essay is equally valid to other groups and individuals who have strong ideas about free speech.
Why the focus on The Satanic Temple? Because it’s a noble and useful organization that I care deeply about. It is performing an important role in the ongoing battle for religious plurality/neutrality versus religious theocracy in American government. It has a set of ethical/moral principles — The Seven Tenets — that I feel on the whole are very healthy, balanced, and pro-social. It has a large and passionate membership full of great people who, on the whole, want make life more fair and just for everyone, not just one favored high-status social group. The Seven Tenets embody the principle that Satanism is the “religion of Enlightenment Values”.
Unfortunately, The Satanic Temple (TST) sometimes deals with a unique set of growing pains due to their rapid popularity and growth, coupled with the ease in which some of their Seven Tenets can be interpreted ambiguously. These unique growing pains revolve around an ironic dissonance between their literary and philosophical roots versus the realities of human nature as currently understood by modern behaviorists and philosophers. These roots come from:
- Miltonic-Romantic literature that featured the metaphor of Lucifer/Satan as the archetypal, original heroic rebel against unjust tyrannical authority
- And the attendant Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers who helped form the ideas of classical liberal democracy that fueled the — wait for it — Satanic revolutions of France and America, and the movement of other European nations away from real monarchy and preeminent church rule to either no monarchy or at best symbolic monarchy, and less social/political influence from religion. Or even a strict separation of church and state.
And the main point of dissonance here is a very stubborn insistence at higher levels of TST leadership on the older, outdated post-Enlightenment Millsian arguments about the value of near-absolute free speech to a society versus the modern scientific and statistical evidence that some important premises of the Millsian argument are being proven out as false! And unfortunately, due to human nature, a fair number of smart, rational members of TST will place greater weight on what the leadership assertively states and perhaps not look too closely at the merits of those assertions versus the counter assertions and arguments of those in the membership who disagree in some part.
I feel that this ongoing dissonance is at the heart of a current round of minor internal schisms and arguments over some tactical decisions made by TST leadership recently. The details aren’t important to this essay. I’m not here to fan any residual flames. I’m here only to focus on moving forward in a positive manner, by proposing a rational argument to the leadership that urges them to slightly modify their stance on free speech in a way that pragmatically accounts for modern understanding of human nature and human behavior.
I don’t want to reinvent the wheel for the arguments for and against the Millsian viewpoint. There are many excellent essays out there about the subject. Including one written fairly recently by Lucien Greaves, one of the top leaders of TST. You can consider this essay my counterpoint to some of Lucien’s arguments.
Briefly, the quick summary is that a Victorian-era philosopher named John Stuart Mill was one of the most influencial thinkers in the formation of classical liberalism during the post-Enlightenment era. (Don’t confuse classical liberalism with what is broadly known as “liberalism” today, because they are different beasts entirely.) Mill had some very strong (at the time) arguments for near-absolute freedom of speech as being very healthy for a society. These arguments revolve around a few basic notions that we broadly refer to nowadays as “the market place of ideas”:
- A basic premise of Mill’s arguments is that most members of a society are rational and capable of discerning “truth”. This notion was adopted from the Enlightenment philosopher Descartes.
- And therefore, since you could trust most citizens to discern “truth”, you could therefore trust bad ideas to die a swift death in the marketplace of ideas. And you could trust good ideas to be continually tested and reaffirmed instead of simply being believed without understanding. And you could trust partly true ideas to evolve and become stronger from constant collision against other ideas.
In my opinion, its in that first bullet point above where the Millsian argument fails. There is plenty of evidence, across numerous modern studies, that puts the lie to this naive optimism about most humans being rational enough that “truth” will always prevail in the marketplace of ideas. I’ll link two essays at the end, both from modern professors of philosophy, that can provide details for this assertion.
But for now, just consider the current landscape of “News” on broadcast TV, print media, and the internet. Do we not have a massive problem with “fake news”? Do we not see report after report detailing this and that evidence that some sub-groups in the American populace hold fast to incredibly ridiculous conspiracy theories or junk science? Do we not see that Fox News and Breitbart hold the attention of massive audiences — a huge percentage of the population — with their constant propaganda and myriad lies and assertions with no basis whatsoever in reality and fact? Do we not see the entire intelligence community of the USA (and other western nations) confidently asserting that Russia was successful in influencing the outcome of the 2016 election through deceptive “fake news” and targeted propaganda across our major social media platforms?
Forget the considered arguments of the two philosophy professors I’ll link at the end. The current news landscape alone should effectively put the lie to Descartes’ and Mills’ premise that the majority of a society can recognize “truth” in the marketplace of ideas and therefore the “bad” and “antisocial” ideas will always lose out in the end.
Let’s also look at the historical examples since the time of Descartes and Mills and the birth of classical liberalism. What was that little flareup we saw in the early 1900s? Oh yeah. Fascism. On a large scale. Entire countries — societies — caught up in a wave of bad, hateful, destructive, anti-social ideas that were provably and obviously based on massive untruths. Seems like the “marketplace of ideas” didn’t act to weed out those bad ideas at all. The aftermath and cost of this “marketplace failure” to their own citizens — and to the citizens of many innocent countries — was devastating.
And it’s not like fascism had only one brief flareup in the 30s and 40s and then died out, never to be seen again, like an aberration or outlier. Nope. We’ve seen fascism rise and be successful in various countries and regions since that time. If the “marketplace of ideas” is so robust and perfect, then why do we see example after example of its outright failure to protect societies from harmful, bad ideas? It’s outright failure to ensure that only the truth prevails? Why does the “marketplace of ideas” simply fail over and over again at ensuring that only the good, pro-social ideas in a society prevail, to keep a society strong and just for its members?
Really, folks. This isn’t rocket science. Lucien… Malcolm…. Chapter leaders… Chapter members… General members… Mills and Descartes are simply, provably wrong on this fundamental premise of theirs. The historical and scientific evidence is absolutely clear on this point. To deny the evidence for a conclusion that the “marketplace of ideas” cannot protect a society from bad actors, bad ideas, and tangible harm and human suffering is to stick your head in the sand.
Yes but what about all the evidence that “hate speech laws” are ineffective?
Great question! One of the most lucid and interesting arguments against so-called “hate speech” laws are the equally compelling historical analyses and modern studies that conclude that “hate speech laws” across various countries are not effective deterrents against actual incidence of hate crimes or a tendency towards flare-ups of fascist political thought and exercise.
To that argument I’ll simply point out that making a pointed “hate speech law” is NOT the same thing as other possible legislative measures that can counterbalance the failures of the “marketplace of ideas”. I’m fond of encouraging others to think outside the box when they are applying critical thinking to a tricky, nuanced problem.
To simply say “hate crimes are a problem exacerbated by hate speech and hate groups, therefore the solution is to ban hate speech and imprision/de-platform hate groups” is… simplistic. Not at all nuanced. And as the evidence seems to demonstrate, totally ineffective.
There’s also the fact that “hate speech” is a very large umbrella that includes concepts of not only violence or harm, but also emotional hurt, emotional well-being, predjudice, dignity, and so on.
So perhaps a more nuanced approach to moving the current bright line for protected versus non-protected speech would be to focus on the “call for open violence and harm” part of the equation. In other words, rather than focusing on “hate speech”, why don’t we focus on speech that is clearly calling for physical harm and violence upon marginalized groups and individuals? The current legal bright line focuses on the notion of immediacy, but perhaps that bright line might be more effective at supporting a healthly, just, equal society if it were moved slightly by focusing on criteria other than immediacy.
Would such a simple change really be such a reprehensible notion? Is that notion somehow in violation of the Seven Tenets or our Satanic ideals? “Harm” is quite different from “Offense”. If some careful movement of the current bright line were to make calls for harm and violence have some legal repercussions, how does this conflict with any of our values? TST in no ways ever calls for “violence” or “harm”. How could such a change be inimical to us Satanists?
Likewise, the classic “slippery slope” argument against any further limitation of “free speech” is simplistic and un-nuanced. That argument goes, for example: “If you start putting limits on hate speech, that opens the doors to putting limits on any type of unpopular speech — either by the state itself, or by social pressure from majority groups in a society”. For example, the usual Satanist phrasing of this slippery slope argument is “What’s to stop the christian majority from calling Satanists (or muslims, or whatever minority religion) a hate group and putting us in danger?”.
Folks, there’s a reason that “slippery slope” arguments are considered a logical fallacy and might indicate a weak argument. And there’s also a reason that the hasty generalization is considered a logical fallacy and might indicate a weak argument.
The argument that “because hate speech laws are proven not effective…” is a classic hasty generalization. And the argument that “what’s to stop Satanic ideas from being called ‘hate speech’?” is a classic slippery slope.
So if “the marketplace of ideas” is a failure, how exactly does that relate to TST leadership positions on “free speech”?
Simply put, some of the recent minor internal strife has centered around Lucien doubling down yet again on his stance that any further limitations on “free speech” that pushes the current legal bright line of “an immediate call for violence/harm” is grave peril for society and for Satanists. And Lucien further has recently doubled down on his stance that any attempts to de-platform Alex Jones or alt-right speakers, etc. is also a grave peril for society and for Satanists.
My point in this essay is to ask Lucien — and the leaders who work with him and Malcolm — to reconsider for one moment that these strong assertions might in fact be built upon a castle of sand. There are excellent arguments and excellent evidence that Descarte and Mills were both mistaken about the self-correcting nature of “the marketplace of ideas”. There is excellent evidence all around you TODAY that the marketplace of ideas has not protected American society from it’s current state of pretty severe peril.
If you can take that first step of laying down your closely-held belief in the face of overwhelming modern evidence, then and only then can you start looking for a better solution. A better stance. One that might not only serve the goals of TST better, but that might also finally reduce some of the inherent conflict you’ve always suffered internally around the interpretation of the Fourth Tenet.
A call to TST to eat its own dogfood about “beliefs based on best scientific understanding”
I’ll end this essay with a few simple reminders to TST:
- You were formed in large part as a response to Anton LaVey’s notions about “best scientfic evidence” from only a scant 50 years ago being provably debunked by more modern scientific understanding about game theory and human behavior. Yet, some of you seem hell-bent on clinging tight to even older notions from more than 150 years ago that have ALSO been provably debunked by more modern scientific understanding and actual historical context. Eat your own dogfood.
- Your own tenets have a built-in “flexibility clause” in the Seventh Tenet. And Lucien and Malcolm have both stated in the past that the Tenets are flexible and can evolve over time to adapt to new evidence and new “best scientific understanding” of reality. Why not reconsider your current stance on the Fourth Tenet? There’s no harm or loss of face in doing so. Don’t we have a tenet about human fallibility? Eat your own dogfood.
- Lucien has stated in the past that the evolutionary update to Satanism offered by The Satanic Temple is in part based around scientific evidence and game theory about the success of collectivism as an evolutionary survival strategy. So…. just exactly how much do you really involve the chapters and the chapter membership in steering and guiding the focus and position of the organization? Think about it. And Eat your own dogfood.
In conclusion, I still very much support the mission and ideals of The Satanic Temple, but in the current state of things I’m sitting somewhat at arm’s length in a “wait and see” mode, and hoping very much that you steer back into a direction that matches my own interpretation of the Seven Tenets as a whole. Thanks for reading this and considering my points, even if you ultimately disagree.
Meanwhile, here are the two supporting articles that I mentioned above. Both are from modern professors of philosophy, and both contain some details that underscore some of my own assertions and points. I strongly encourage you to carefully read both of these relatively short articles, as they lay out some additional supporting arguments — and evidence — that put the lie to the central assertion in this essay. And if you still believe strongly in the Millsian arguments for the “marketplace of ideas” despite all I’ve said, then if nothing else consider these two articles as good tests that might deepen your understanding and commitment to that belief.
