A Youtube Curation: Outsourcing a Free Speech Post

I'm not a free speech absolutist. I can think of simple examples where I prefer a world where speech can be legally suppressed, penalized or compelled. Financial advisors should not be allowed to recommend products that pay them the highest commissions but do not deliver the greatest or safest returns for their clients. Doctors should not be able to omit a less intrusive and debilitating treatment program because it makes them less money etc. A witness called in a court should not be able to commit perjury. etc. etc. etc.

The pandemic that went global in 2020 though made me further reconsider my position on free-speech. I feel where I arrived at was a 'put up or shut up' amendment to free speech.

Which is to say, I have a specific problem with dishonest interlocutors who translate 'free speech' into 'if I am losing/have lost an argument, I can just ditch it and go make the same losing arguments to a new audience that hopefully isn't smart enough to rebut me.'

The 'put up or shut up' is more if you make a claim or assert a truth, at some point you need to meet your burden of proof or desist in asserting that claim. 

Fortunately, this was one of those areas where inaction paid off, and I was able to outsource much of the heavy lifting, including the useful phrase 'constitution of knowledge'.

Unlike my last curation, these youtube videos aren't necessary in contrast to each other from an ideological or approach point of view. One is a very useful role play where one free speech advocate takes the contrary position (speech should be limited) to force another free speech advocate to defend their point of view. 

The second deals with a 'constitution of knowledge' and in this case, the curation I'm doing to pair these youtube interviews together follows a logic more in line with conversation 1: Addresses a misunderstanding of what 'free speech' is, what it means and why it is important. conversation 2: A domain in which it is desirable to limit speech - claims to knowledge.

Conversation 1:

Conversation 2:

in this case, I realize that somebody who may benefit the most from watching these two videos might object on the ground that all the participants are white men. I did recently listen to an interview about free speech with the eminently qualified Suzanne Nossel who while still white is an accomplished woman it just left me feeling malnourished the way I felt she shied away from discussing cancel-culture, critical race theory and critical pedagogy etc. It left me with a similar feeling as when Trump grits his teeth to condemn the Ku Klux Klan or Jordan Peterson hates the question 'do you believe in God?' where I just feel someone rather than engaging, is aversive to alienating a meal ticket. 

Understandable but malnourishing.