Those who want to maintain narratives, cannot allow voices that challenge their narratives.
For instance, if I want to say the "economy is wonderful" I can only allow free speech if I truly believe the "economy is wonderful", and that anyone who argues otherwise will be overwhelmed by people agreeing that the "economy is wonderful". If I believe the economy is "not wonderful" but want to maintain a narrative that the "economy is wonderful" then I need to shut down all voices that provide counter information / views.
The reason why this is dangerous is that if the only voices that are saying that the "economy is not wonderful" are the extreme voices with destructive agendas credibility is being given to those voices because they are speaking truth when the voices that are saying the "economy is wonderful" are propagating falsehoods.
Truth requires validation. The bible tells us to "test the spirits". The only way to determine what is true is to allow everyone to take their best shot to tear it down. If they can't tear it down, it is likely true.
That is the nature of the scientific process. Put forward a hypothesis, make some predictions on the basis of that hypothesis, then test it to see if it is valid. Rinse & repeat.
This can only happen in an environment where Free Speech is supported.
The issue of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue but rather one of property rights. When you buy a movie ticket you enter into a contract to enter private property and peacefully watch the movie. You don't have free speech rights in someone else's private property, for example you can't have a protest rally on your neighbour's lawn and say it's allowed because it's protected speech - that's irrelevant because you have no right to do that on their property. Similarly falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a violation of the theater owner's property rights as one has only been allowed into the theater by (implicitly or explicitly) agreeing not to behave in such a manner. So there is no conflict with free speech and no need to limit free speech due to such a case.
It is breathtaking that the baby boomers that protested vigorously for free speech to oppose the war, the man, the oppressive Orwellian drift of big government... today are the same that poll support for limits to free speech (which is no free speech) and support the wars, the man and the Orwellian drift of more massive big government.
This causes me to think we are righteous to cancel the romanticism of those 60s and 70s protests and join the opinion of the Greatest Generation that their offspring, the baby boomer generation, should be labeled the "Greatest Embarrassment Generation".
The problem is that within democracy, and given that these people made offspring that they modeled after themselves, their strength in numbers makes them not only an embarrassment, but a hazard to the free world.
At my age, I am between the baby boomers and millennial generation, and I have always thought the romanticism of that time in the 60s and 70s was misplaced... that these were largely dysfunctional kids unable to measure up to the sacrifices their parents made and thus went on drug and sex adventures to find themselves. And in the end the baby boomers consume more psychotherapy services that any other demographic. They were messed up as kids, and they are just as messed up as adults. They are never worthy enough and that causes them to behave as greedy, selfish turds that have about destroyed society only to make themselves feel better for an hour.
Their drift toward illiberal beliefs is basically proof that they are empty moral shells of humanity unworthy of any position of control or power over the rest of us.
This should be required reading in every 12th grade classroom.
Those who want to maintain narratives, cannot allow voices that challenge their narratives.
For instance, if I want to say the "economy is wonderful" I can only allow free speech if I truly believe the "economy is wonderful", and that anyone who argues otherwise will be overwhelmed by people agreeing that the "economy is wonderful". If I believe the economy is "not wonderful" but want to maintain a narrative that the "economy is wonderful" then I need to shut down all voices that provide counter information / views.
The reason why this is dangerous is that if the only voices that are saying that the "economy is not wonderful" are the extreme voices with destructive agendas credibility is being given to those voices because they are speaking truth when the voices that are saying the "economy is wonderful" are propagating falsehoods.
Truth requires validation. The bible tells us to "test the spirits". The only way to determine what is true is to allow everyone to take their best shot to tear it down. If they can't tear it down, it is likely true.
That is the nature of the scientific process. Put forward a hypothesis, make some predictions on the basis of that hypothesis, then test it to see if it is valid. Rinse & repeat.
This can only happen in an environment where Free Speech is supported.
The issue of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue but rather one of property rights. When you buy a movie ticket you enter into a contract to enter private property and peacefully watch the movie. You don't have free speech rights in someone else's private property, for example you can't have a protest rally on your neighbour's lawn and say it's allowed because it's protected speech - that's irrelevant because you have no right to do that on their property. Similarly falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a violation of the theater owner's property rights as one has only been allowed into the theater by (implicitly or explicitly) agreeing not to behave in such a manner. So there is no conflict with free speech and no need to limit free speech due to such a case.
It is breathtaking that the baby boomers that protested vigorously for free speech to oppose the war, the man, the oppressive Orwellian drift of big government... today are the same that poll support for limits to free speech (which is no free speech) and support the wars, the man and the Orwellian drift of more massive big government.
This causes me to think we are righteous to cancel the romanticism of those 60s and 70s protests and join the opinion of the Greatest Generation that their offspring, the baby boomer generation, should be labeled the "Greatest Embarrassment Generation".
The problem is that within democracy, and given that these people made offspring that they modeled after themselves, their strength in numbers makes them not only an embarrassment, but a hazard to the free world.
At my age, I am between the baby boomers and millennial generation, and I have always thought the romanticism of that time in the 60s and 70s was misplaced... that these were largely dysfunctional kids unable to measure up to the sacrifices their parents made and thus went on drug and sex adventures to find themselves. And in the end the baby boomers consume more psychotherapy services that any other demographic. They were messed up as kids, and they are just as messed up as adults. They are never worthy enough and that causes them to behave as greedy, selfish turds that have about destroyed society only to make themselves feel better for an hour.
Their drift toward illiberal beliefs is basically proof that they are empty moral shells of humanity unworthy of any position of control or power over the rest of us.