Q&A: Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Expression
Question
Hello.
Your view on freedom of expression is very independent (as is well known). The main argument you raise is: we are not supposed to decide what a person is allowed to hear and which arguments he may accept.
That is: we should let matters flow naturally (since one cannot claim that if he wants, he can think through all sides entirely on his own). If so, based on that same premise, I do not understand why it is permissible to use, in debate, tools that persuade a person (or at least tilt him) to give extra weight to one side, such as cynicism or pathos. Why not just present the dry arguments and let him decide whatever he decides? Unless you would say that these methods are not persuasive tools, but at most motivate him to reexamine the argument. But then why can the same discussion not be applied to that itself? (I understand there is a fallacy here; I want to know what it is.)
B. There is a person with authority (essentially…), and even without all these tools people would treat him seriously (like the Rabbi…). Please enlighten me on this.
(Although, as far as you’re concerned, I am a hated Haredi Hasidic obscurantist living in Brooklyn—what could be worse than that? And luckily the filters here do not block the Rabbi’s site. In any case, I have learned from you that one should address arguments and not the person, and therefore I relate to your views with curiosity and ask you to answer me in the spirit of “as water reflects a face to a face.”)
Answer
Let me begin by saying that you are not hated by me. I do not hate Haredim, only Haredism. Most of them are like children taken captive. In any case, I relate to questions and not to the questioner.
I do not understand the question. These are means of persuasion, but they leave the decision to the person.
Discussion on Answer
I do not support freedom of expression in order not to prevent a person from making a decision. There is an obligation to give him the tools to make a decision. Therefore it is not enough merely that I do not prevent him from deciding.
I did not understand your question about persuasion. I do not see the slightest problem there. I never said anywhere that it is forbidden to influence a person’s decisions. On the contrary, I am in favor of everyone trying to persuade others of what he believes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. But even when we restrict freedom of expression, we are not really dictating a person’s decision in advance (after all, in truth it is impossible to determine for someone what he will think); rather, we are influencing things so that his decision will be different from what it would have been had he heard those arguments. The same is true of means of persuasion. That is, why in your view is it immoral to prohibit freedom of expression regarding things that, in my opinion, are false, and where So-and-so, if he hears the opposing arguments, is not smart enough to stand by the truth, such that if he hears the other side he will acquire the falsehood? The answer is: regardless of whether it is true or not, you are not supposed to decide what the other person will think—you are not his master to decide for him. Likewise, you answered, “These are means of persuasion.” Here the problem is that the very fact that you want to persuade him is problematic. Why persuade him? Let him think whatever he wants. In short, means of persuasion influence his position, and according to your view that is certainly immoral, because it is his choice—what is it to you? (Unless the means of persuasion are there so that he should not dismiss you, and that too requires discussion.)