Sunday, February 12, 2017
Freedom of Speech and "Alternative Facts"
J. S. Mill in his classic defense of free speech in On Liberty worries that the suppression of opinions, even those that are false, prevents a healthy debate of ideas. He claims, for instance, that "not only the grounds of the opinion are forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the meaning of the opinion itself "(37). Yet, in our own day, there are other threats to the vigorous debate that Mill thought essential for understanding an idea at all. In the age of social media networks and newsfeeds, citizens insulate themselves from views that disagree with. In addition, in the era of "fake news" and "alternative facts" citizens are confused by opinions deliberately intended to manipulate them. Many people, for example, believe that climate change is a hoax and fail to address the issue because of deliberate attempts by the fossil fuel industry to confuse them. Under these circumstances, how is Mill's debate about ideas possible? Is there any plausible solution? Should the government regulate news like the FDA regulates the claims of commercial products? Or will truth eventually win out?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Mill that everyone has a right to express their own opinion, but I believe that fake news should be suppressed because opinions are different than facts. I define an “opinion” as how someone interprets pieces of information, while “facts” are those pieces of information themselves. People may believe that the glass is half full or that it is half empty, but the fact is that the glass contains 50% of its maximum liquid holding capacity. This same idea can apply to the example of global warming. Some people may interpret the climate change data as it saying humans created it and others may develop the opposite opinion. However, at the end of the day what is the fact and undeniable is that average temperatures are rising. No one has the power to force another to interpret the data in a certain way, but not matter what one believes based on the data no one cannot deny that temperatures are rising. The difference between an alternative fact and an opinion would be that fake facts are information that is inherently false, while an opinion is how a certain piece of information is seen. As for regulating fake news, I do not believe there is a plausible solution because of real time events. If something has happened and the situation is changing from minute to minute, there is not a way to determine whether a claim is true or false because media outlets may not have all of the information. When it comes to more stagnant issues, I do believe it is possible for the government to have some type of regulation of fake news and it is something that it should try.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with Mill’s argument that freedom of speech is absolutely necessary in sustaining a diverse and strong nation, I ultimately believe that there needs to be at least some form of regulation on news, especially online. In On Liberty¸ Mill argues that the suppression of freedom of speech – whether right OR wrong – is detrimental to society. In most cases, this philosophy still remains true in today’s world. Politics and religion, among many other topics, should be continually discussed and examined critically; by debating these ideas, people are either enlightened to new truths or become more convinced of their own opinions. But, in my opinion, there is a clear and important distinction to make between these topics and the news. Throughout the history of humanity, there has always been “news.” Granted, it has taken shape in many different forms over the years, but the travel of new information is a phenomenon that is now an integral part to human life as a whole. But, only in recent decades has news become so widespread and universal. In years past, news sources were typically more credible sources that were held accountable by the general population because of their popularity and more professional production. There were biases and different interpretations of the same event – that, of course, is inevitable. But, if these sources were to blatantly lie about quantitative facts, there was backlash. As the Internet continues to grow in its popularity and depth, people can no longer depend on society to point out and protect them from these blatant lies and falsities. Because of the sheer number of online news articles/videos and the fact that ANYONE can publish these entries, it is much easier for these news stories to pass under the radar of national attention and accountability. People, still rooted in this age-old principal that news sources can always be trusted, do not question what they see online. Unlike politics and religion, which have always been understood to be controversial and subjective topics, the news is generally accepted by the population without question or hesitation. Therefore, I believe that news articles should be held to a different standard than these other themes because news has a special role in our society. Unlike other more widely-disputed issues, people don’t read/watch the news with the cautious mentality and understanding that it may not be true; it is assumed to be completely trustworthy and reliable. The FDA requires food companies to print correct nutritional labels on products because they are fact. Thus, news sources should also be held accountable for the truth since they are depended for the same type of information: facts.
ReplyDeleteSome may argue that the truth will always win out in the end. I disagree because as Mill states regarding unchallenged and misunderstood beliefs, “those who hold it have generally inherited, not adopted it; and conversion from one of these doctrines to another, being now an exceptional fact, occupies little place in the thoughts of their professors. Instead of being, as at first, constantly on the alert either to defend themselves against the world or to bring the world over to them, they have subsided into acquiescence and neither listen…nor trouble dissentients with arguments in its favors” (38). Therefore, when people surround themselves with these ideas and misconceptions – no matter how false and incorrect they may be – they close their minds off the idea that they may be wrong. Because of the faith that they have in the news, they accept it as the entire truth and defend its integrity, even without really understanding it.
I believe that Mill’s debate can still apply and is still possible in our new age of facts and alternative facts. It is true that Mill strongly believes that the suppression of opinions prevents debate of ideas. More importantly, it is his claims that "not only the grounds of the opinion are forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the meaning of the opinion itself"(37) that ensures that his debate is still possible. In this day and age, I believe that Mill’s debate can be expanded to the fact vs. alternative fact situation developing in this nation. While there can only be one fact, alternative facts are false beliefs of others that can only be clarified/ proven false through debate and discussion. This debate occurs with the cooperation of the so called fifth branch of government, the media, and has allowed Americans to see the two sets of opinions and weight them in order to make their own decision. More than ever, the words of the President, and the government are being debated on TV and compared to other plans and ideas. This is extremely healthy as it shines more light on the truth and fact. I believe that the government should not step in and regulate news to pre judge content is dangerous and undermines societies ability to judge opinions and prevent the suppression of ideas. Pharmaceutical like government regulation opens the door to government censorship of pieces that are critical of government activates or news stories that cover whistle blowers. The independence of our media allows the debate that Mill writes about to be a reality. For example, if government regulation was abused, people may not have heard about NSA activity or Former National Security Adviser Flynn’s ties to Russia because it was against government policy. Granting them power over media opens the door to that type of censorship and the suppression of facts and information that the public has a right to know. Furthermore, government regulation has not been proved to be necessary as the truth has eventually won. When President Trump or a member of his staff/followers have made false claims, like a claim that the unemployment rate might be as high as 20%, the media has facilitates debates that showed the false nature of the comments. Since the debate is occurring, and Mill’s principle can be applied, the government should not highly regulate the media as the truth is still eventually winning.
ReplyDelete