Law in Contemporary Society

View   r17  >  r16  >  r15  >  r14  >  r13  >  r12  ...
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 17 - 11 Jan 2010 - Main.IanSullivan
Line: 1 to 1
Changed:
<
<
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotes2008Jan24"
 1) The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. (caveat: this is wrong.)
2) We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's prison experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be. (caveat: Eben told us to be "students," not "prisoners")
3) Free Speech is a social not a legal function. A. Laughter is a kind of public force. B. People naturally confuse descriptive statements for prescriptive ones. C. People look stupid arguing with smarter people. (caveat: maybe because it's stupid)

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 16 - 01 Feb 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
Changed:
<
<
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."

"Freedom of opinion does not exist in America." -ADT

Some people worry that Eben's style of classroom critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Personally, I disagree. The opportunity cost of free speech in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to anyone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of his students' ideas fall below his intellectual standard, and redirect those to a forum where they can be developed, at less cost, to meet that standard.

If Eben believes in open information, and this class is about challenging authority, why is the classroom so much more friendly to authority than to challenges? I might ask Eben, but I have a theory: the professor wants us to absorb his opinions ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserves the TWiki as our forum for that critique. Eben, I oblige.

The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. Ideas interact here more like J.S. Mill expected them to, more like particles in an ideal gas (i.e. here, when we don't listen, it's because we don't WANT to). It's the best forum for us to hear each other, the safest forum for us to learn from each other, and the LAST asylum for free speech. TWiki has the potential to be our town-hall democracy.

How should we use that potential?

MichaelBrown reminds me [which I deleted because it was responding to an older draft] that Eben gave us a guiding principle: the TWiki helps him "evaluate contributions/participation to a degree." I suppose we might infer from this a second principle, that it is supposed to be some kind of learning tool. That's all we've got. Default to anarchy and the rule of the strongest, unless we all agree to be a democracy. We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's prison experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be.

I say the prisoners should take over this prison. It's what Eben would do in our position. He didn't include the class rules in the box, but neither does a Ouija Board. They work the same way. And even if I'm wrong, and my made-up rules break his HIDDEN rules, we won't hang separately if we all agree to hang together: we're graded on a curve.

So, join my revolution! We already have a Constitution and we're working on a Bill of Rights.

We must protect free (TWiki) speech.

Once we lose free speech here, our asylum from the classroom, we lose it entirely. Therefore this TWiki should be immune from legitimate in-class suppression. If we could do more good to the TWiki than harm to one speaker by suppressing any in class speech that suppresses TWiki speech, then we should sacrifice that piece of speech for the sake of Free Speech, because the premise of the principle in paragraph 1 is to maximize the BENEFITS of discussion, as a SUM of class and TWiki (is everything a fallacy of distribution, or just me?).

Free Speech is a social not a legal function. I suspect that Kate and Barb are irrepressible enough, but yesterday's class made me fear for the future Kates and Barbs who will speak neither in class nor on the TWiki. Critiques by Authority Figures in their capacity as Authority Figures (okay, okay, I mean Eben) can be as chilling on our posts as the edicts of Public Authorities. Authority Figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us confuse their descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will look stupid when we argue with real lawyers.

How would you guys vote on a First Amendment Plus No Prior Restraints (Except for this one [thanks, DanielHarris]), sanctioning speech by Authority Figures that discourages posts on the TWiki by Inferiority Figures? Eben, we haven't passed the rule yet, so you can opine too!

>
>
1) The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. (caveat: this is wrong.)
2) We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's prison experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be. (caveat: Eben told us to be "students," not "prisoners")
3) Free Speech is a social not a legal function. A. Laughter is a kind of public force. B. People naturally confuse descriptive statements for prescriptive ones. C. People look stupid arguing with smarter people. (caveat: maybe because it's stupid)
-- AndrewGradman - 01 Feb 2008 (this confession was not extracted by torture.)
 -- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008
Deleted:
<
<
Please don't deactivate my account.

-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

 Your ideas of "free speech" and prior restraint are almost completely at odds with mine. Prohibiting "critiques that deter people from speaking freely," if you could do it, would be a prior restraint. The critiques are not restraint--they're speech. Prior restraint would be Eben's deactivating your account or running your posts through a moderation queue.

Eben's critiques probably /chill/ speech to some degree, but they aren't some distinct sort of "anti-speech"--even if our brains occasionally explode at the collision.


FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 15 - 29 Jan 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 14 - 29 Jan 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."
Line: 52 to 52
 The way this community is using the wiki is really interesting and new to me. I've seen wiki's used in lots of companies (I even implemented MediaWiki? at my last job, woohoo me) and their general purpose is to centrally store facts relevant to the community (a funny example I've seen is a wiki category devoted to providing definitions of nonsensical words that a co-worker notorious for making up her own adjectives commonly used).
Added:
>
>
 I guess there's no "wrong" type of content, but my point is that the general tone of conversation seems odd. I sort of expected more discussion specifically on ideas relevant to our readings, notices of other references to check out to expand understanding, etc. We so far have some of that, but we also have a lot of elaborate discussion on classroom management, predictions about what Eben is feeling or "wants" us to say/think, and general venting. I'm not trying to criticize, but let's think about this. Especially because, although participation in wiki discussions is probably limited by many factors (time, general interest, comfort with the technology, etc) I think the direction that the existing conversations take will influence how many people participate in this community at all.
Added:
>
>
 -- MakalikaNaholowaa - 26 Jan 2008
Added:
>
>
  • I think this is an extremely important comment. One partial explanation that those who do work often with wikis will of course understand is that there are many people here to whom the experience is new, so they are doing a predictable thing: they are using a new tool in a familiar old way. In this case, they are blogging with it. We will start active refactoring later this week, which will melt most of the blog commentary away very quickly, because on editing we will find there's much repetitive rhetoric and unsupported speculation, which we don't need to retain. A few good points have been made along the way, and they will look all the more impressive when they're not enmeshed in the back-and-forth of commentary as they are now. But you can't learn anything about what we've read, or even about the less controversial and more theoretical portions of the ideas I have wound around the arguments we have read, by reading the wiki. Makalika is not only right that there's been much heartfelt blogging, but also that this has displaced doing the intellectual job one might have thought the wiki was here to help us do. I said the wiki was for active listening, and instead it's turned out to be for arguing with me and worrying about whether I am so retributive towards people who are arguing with me that people might stop arguing with me. We can and will change the direction, working together to use the wiki in a more conventional and collaborative fashion. But I think the best part of Makalika's comment isn't just that she has shown a problem. It's that she's asked us to think about why we have the problem--not only in the sense of determining what it costs us, but also what it helps us to do, and in what therefore its attractiveness consists. And that's a very important question. Because inexperience in using wikis is not by any means the only cause in giving this one--made in this community's image--the character it has.
 
Changed:
<
<
Barb, thanks for your constant support. Makalika, I admire what you say. You burst my bubble in a tenth of the time it took me to blow it up. My response is, To take on a "consilient" view of the class and the world it's about, I have conflated the class's form with its content. The use of the TWiki itself, and everything else unconventional about the class management, is part of the education. Everything in this class is so new, to legal education and to us, that it must be an experiment. For better or for worse, I have started a dialogue that will permit us to EXPERIENCE firsthand the ideas we're talking about. That seemed to me to be the preexisting theme of the course. I suppose I might have asked privately, but I also assumed that in WikiCulture? , Secrets Secrets Are No Fun.
>
>
AndrewGradman wrote on the 26th that he understood and accepted Makalika's conclusion, but that "at some early point [he] internalized the idea that the class is precisely About Questioning Authority," for which purpose it is clear the wiki is very adaptable. In addition, he argued, it is impossible in this class to "distinguish, for certain, the Form from the Content." These seem to me lucid and valuable statements.
 
Changed:
<
<
Your last sentence is the most compelling. It does teach me a lesson, which is that I should stop asking meta-questions of "What is this class about," and confront the material head-on. Still, at some early point I internalized the idea that the class is precisely About Questioning Authority. It's entirely possible I just brought that assumption to the table -- a chip on my shoulder. Either way, it makes me hesitate to take any one stand against the material. It makes me schizophrenic. Really, can anyone in this class distinguish, for certain, the Form from the Content?
>
>
Formatted and commented upon, with slight refactoring, by way of conclusion.
 
Changed:
<
<
P.S. Eben, there is one thing I'd like to apologize for, and that is setting a precedent for referring to you in the third person. I need to fire my proofreader.

-- AndrewGradman - 26 Jan 2008

 
<--/commentPlugin-->
rms
>
>
-- EbenMoglen - 28 Jan 2008.

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 13 - 26 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."
Line: 55 to 55
 I guess there's no "wrong" type of content, but my point is that the general tone of conversation seems odd. I sort of expected more discussion specifically on ideas relevant to our readings, notices of other references to check out to expand understanding, etc. We so far have some of that, but we also have a lot of elaborate discussion on classroom management, predictions about what Eben is feeling or "wants" us to say/think, and general venting. I'm not trying to criticize, but let's think about this. Especially because, although participation in wiki discussions is probably limited by many factors (time, general interest, comfort with the technology, etc) I think the direction that the existing conversations take will influence how many people participate in this community at all.

-- MakalikaNaholowaa - 26 Jan 2008

Added:
>
>

Barb, thanks for your constant support. Makalika, I admire what you say. You burst my bubble in a tenth of the time it took me to blow it up. My response is, To take on a "consilient" view of the class and the world it's about, I have conflated the class's form with its content. The use of the TWiki itself, and everything else unconventional about the class management, is part of the education. Everything in this class is so new, to legal education and to us, that it must be an experiment. For better or for worse, I have started a dialogue that will permit us to EXPERIENCE firsthand the ideas we're talking about. That seemed to me to be the preexisting theme of the course. I suppose I might have asked privately, but I also assumed that in WikiCulture? , Secrets Secrets Are No Fun.

Your last sentence is the most compelling. It does teach me a lesson, which is that I should stop asking meta-questions of "What is this class about," and confront the material head-on. Still, at some early point I internalized the idea that the class is precisely About Questioning Authority. It's entirely possible I just brought that assumption to the table -- a chip on my shoulder. Either way, it makes me hesitate to take any one stand against the material. It makes me schizophrenic. Really, can anyone in this class distinguish, for certain, the Form from the Content?

P.S. Eben, there is one thing I'd like to apologize for, and that is setting a precedent for referring to you in the third person. I need to fire my proofreader.

-- AndrewGradman - 26 Jan 2008

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
rms \ No newline at end of file

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 12 - 26 Jan 2008 - Main.MakalikaNaholowaa
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."
Line: 46 to 46
 

-- BarbPitman - 26 Jan 2008

Added:
>
>

I'm freaked out that we need a Constitution, Bill of Rights, revolution, etc.

The way this community is using the wiki is really interesting and new to me. I've seen wiki's used in lots of companies (I even implemented MediaWiki? at my last job, woohoo me) and their general purpose is to centrally store facts relevant to the community (a funny example I've seen is a wiki category devoted to providing definitions of nonsensical words that a co-worker notorious for making up her own adjectives commonly used).

I guess there's no "wrong" type of content, but my point is that the general tone of conversation seems odd. I sort of expected more discussion specifically on ideas relevant to our readings, notices of other references to check out to expand understanding, etc. We so far have some of that, but we also have a lot of elaborate discussion on classroom management, predictions about what Eben is feeling or "wants" us to say/think, and general venting. I'm not trying to criticize, but let's think about this. Especially because, although participation in wiki discussions is probably limited by many factors (time, general interest, comfort with the technology, etc) I think the direction that the existing conversations take will influence how many people participate in this community at all.

-- MakalikaNaholowaa - 26 Jan 2008

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
rms

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 11 - 26 Jan 2008 - Main.BarbPitman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."
Line: 39 to 39
 Eben's critiques probably /chill/ speech to some degree, but they aren't some distinct sort of "anti-speech"--even if our brains occasionally explode at the collision.

-- DanielHarris - 25 Jan 2008

Added:
>
>

Andrew and Daniel, In case you’re curious about what someone thinks about this “free speech” issue who has been, according to another observer, “blasted” by Eben, I agree for the most part with Daniel, but would tweak and expand the analysis a little further: I don’t think his critiques are meant as "anti-speech," but I assume he is aware that his critiques lead, as you say, to some of our brains occasionally exploding at the collision. And what is the nature of this collision? I think it is largely his refusal to meet our expectation that teachers respond to our remarks with a modicum of diplomacy, fewer and less intense episodes of histrionics, and more of an exhibition of what is currently termed "emotional intelligence." [Don’t get me wrong on the emotional intelligence part: I don’t think he’s devoid of it, I just think he refuses to show much of it.] In other words, it’s not so much what he says that tends to chill expression, but how he says it. I don't think he can't meet our behavioral expectations, it's just that he refuses to do so. Why? Perhaps to get us to think outside of our little self-imposed boxes, and he knows he can do this more effectively by lobbing his data, observations, and opinions into the classroom arena in this manner. My suggestion (for whatever this is worth): try not to take the theatrics too seriously (or personally), listen to what he says, but think for yourself.

-- BarbPitman - 26 Jan 2008

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
rms

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 10 - 26 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."

"Freedom of opinion does not exist in America." -ADT

Changed:
<
<
Some people feel that Eben's style of classroom critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Personally, I disagree. The opportunity cost of free speech in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to anyone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of his students' ideas fall below his intellectual standard, and redirect those to a forum where they can be developed, at less cost, to meet that standard.
>
>
Some people worry that Eben's style of classroom critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Personally, I disagree. The opportunity cost of free speech in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to anyone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of his students' ideas fall below his intellectual standard, and redirect those to a forum where they can be developed, at less cost, to meet that standard.
 
Changed:
<
<
If Eben believes in open information, and this class is about challenging authority, why is the classroom so much more friendly to authority than to challenges? I might ask Eben, but I have a guess: the professor wants us to absorb his opinions ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserves the TWiki as our forum for that critique. Here I oblige.
>
>
If Eben believes in open information, and this class is about challenging authority, why is the classroom so much more friendly to authority than to challenges? I might ask Eben, but I have a theory: the professor wants us to absorb his opinions ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserves the TWiki as our forum for that critique. Eben, I oblige.
 The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. Ideas interact here more like J.S. Mill expected them to, more like particles in an ideal gas (i.e. here, when we don't listen, it's because we don't WANT to). It's the best forum for us to hear each other, the safest forum for us to learn from each other, and the LAST asylum for free speech. TWiki has the potential to be our town-hall democracy.

How should we use that potential?

Changed:
<
<
MichaelBrown reminds me [which I deleted because it was responding to an older draft] that Eben gave us a guiding principle: that the TWiki helps him "evaluate contributions/participation to a degree." I suppose we might infer from this a second principle, that it is supposed to be some kind of learning tool. That's all we've got. Default to anarchy and the rule of the strongest, unless we all agree to be a democracy. We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's prison experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be.
>
>
MichaelBrown reminds me [which I deleted because it was responding to an older draft] that Eben gave us a guiding principle: the TWiki helps him "evaluate contributions/participation to a degree." I suppose we might infer from this a second principle, that it is supposed to be some kind of learning tool. That's all we've got. Default to anarchy and the rule of the strongest, unless we all agree to be a democracy. We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's prison experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be.
 
Changed:
<
<
I say the prisoners should take over this prison. First of all, we all believe in free speech. It makes sense to deny it in class, but not here. Second, it's what Eben would do in our position. He didn't include the rules in the box, but neither does a Ouija Board. Both are remedies for denial; and you win at Ouija by making up the rules; the analogy extends to grades. And even if I'm wrong, and my made-up rules break the HIDDEN rules, we won't hang separately if we all agree to hang together: we're graded on a curve.
>
>
I say the prisoners should take over this prison. It's what Eben would do in our position. He didn't include the class rules in the box, but neither does a Ouija Board. They work the same way. And even if I'm wrong, and my made-up rules break his HIDDEN rules, we won't hang separately if we all agree to hang together: we're graded on a curve.
 
Changed:
<
<
So, join my revolution! We already have a Constitution.
>
>
So, join my revolution! We already have a Constitution and we're working on a Bill of Rights.
 
Changed:
<
<

We must protect free speech.

>
>

We must protect free (TWiki) speech.

 
Changed:
<
<
Not by way of a rule, though. Free Speech is a social function.
>
>
Once we lose free speech here, our asylum from the classroom, we lose it entirely. Therefore this TWiki should be immune from legitimate in-class suppression. If we could do more good to the TWiki than harm to one speaker by suppressing any in class speech that suppresses TWiki speech, then we should sacrifice that piece of speech for the sake of Free Speech, because the premise of the principle in paragraph 1 is to maximize the BENEFITS of discussion, as a SUM of class and TWiki (is everything a fallacy of distribution, or just me?).
 
Changed:
<
<
AdamCarlis suggested some values. Fortunately, I don't think anyone's violated them yet. But I'd like to add: No Prior Restraint. That includes critiques that deter people from speaking freely. If suppressing those critiques advances free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole.
>
>
Free Speech is a social not a legal function. I suspect that Kate and Barb are irrepressible enough, but yesterday's class made me fear for the future Kates and Barbs who will speak neither in class nor on the TWiki. Critiques by Authority Figures in their capacity as Authority Figures (okay, okay, I mean Eben) can be as chilling on our posts as the edicts of Public Authorities. Authority Figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us confuse their descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will look stupid when we argue with real lawyers.
 
Changed:
<
<
In particular, our First Amendment should bar speech by Authority Figures that discourages posts by Inferiority Figures. The opinions of Authority Figures can deter us as much as the edicts of Public Authorities. Authority Figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us confuse their descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will look stupid when we argue with those who can.
>
>
How would you guys vote on a First Amendment Plus No Prior Restraints (Except for this one [thanks, DanielHarris]), sanctioning speech by Authority Figures that discourages posts on the TWiki by Inferiority Figures? Eben, we haven't passed the rule yet, so you can opine too!
 
Deleted:
<
<
I am thinking of yesterday's class. Eben—God I'm playing with fire, but I'd be a coward to use the third person—Eben, I am thinking particularly of Barb's post yesterday. I would have liked

Shall we defend free speech on our TWiki, from enemies foreign and domestic? Answer here, or don't answer at all: either will answer my question.

 -- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008
Changed:
<
<
Eben, please don't deactivate my account.
>
>
Please don't deactivate my account.
 -- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 9 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.DanielHarris
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."
Line: 35 to 35
 Eben, please don't deactivate my account.

-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

Added:
>
>

Your ideas of "free speech" and prior restraint are almost completely at odds with mine. Prohibiting "critiques that deter people from speaking freely," if you could do it, would be a prior restraint. The critiques are not restraint--they're speech. Prior restraint would be Eben's deactivating your account or running your posts through a moderation queue.

Eben's critiques probably /chill/ speech to some degree, but they aren't some distinct sort of "anti-speech"--even if our brains occasionally explode at the collision.

-- DanielHarris - 25 Jan 2008

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
rms

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 8 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
Changed:
<
<
As always, a work in progress.
I love how nothing we say in the classroom is immune to critique. Some people feel that critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Yes, our class needs free speech: It improves our ideas, promotes democracy, dignifies the marginalized.
>
>
"Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say: "We are aware that the people whom we are addressing are too superior to the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of their temper for an instant. We should not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world."
 
Changed:
<
<
But cowing critique is not censorship when it channels speech to a more thoughtful form and a less destructive forum. The opportunity cost of speaking in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to someone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of 50 students' ideas are most helpful. He sets an intellectual standard for the forum.
>
>
"Freedom of opinion does not exist in America." -ADT
 
Changed:
<
<
Ideas that fall below his standard should not be censored, but spoken in a less costly forum. Clearly the TWiki is that forum. It's possible Eben intended it as that forum. If it was not so intended, Last week, in ClassNotes17Jan08, I compared class to TWiki this way:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.
>
>
Some people feel that Eben's style of classroom critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Personally, I disagree. The opportunity cost of free speech in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to anyone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of his students' ideas fall below his intellectual standard, and redirect those to a forum where they can be developed, at less cost, to meet that standard.
 
Changed:
<
<
The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. Ideas interact here more like J.S. Mill expected them to, more like particles in an ideal gas (i.e. here, when we don't listen, we don't WANT to). It's the best forum for us to hear each other, the safest forum for us to learn from each other, and the LAST asylum for free speech. TWiki has the potential to be our town-hall democracy.
>
>
If Eben believes in open information, and this class is about challenging authority, why is the classroom so much more friendly to authority than to challenges? I might ask Eben, but I have a guess: the professor wants us to absorb his opinions ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserves the TWiki as our forum for that critique. Here I oblige.
 
Changed:
<
<
What should we do with that potential? MichaelBrown reminds me that Eben gave us a guiding principle—that TWiki helps him "evaluate contributions/participation to a degree." I suppose we might infer from that a second principle, that this is supposed to be some kind of learning tool. That's all we've got. The default is anarchy. It's only a democracy if we all agree to it. We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be.
>
>
The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. Ideas interact here more like J.S. Mill expected them to, more like particles in an ideal gas (i.e. here, when we don't listen, it's because we don't WANT to). It's the best forum for us to hear each other, the safest forum for us to learn from each other, and the LAST asylum for free speech. TWiki has the potential to be our town-hall democracy.
 
Changed:
<
<
I say the prisoners should take over this prison. For a few reasons. First of all, because we all believe in free speech. __. Second, for those of you who are concerned about grades, I've thought really hard about the rules of the game, and I think that's what we're supposed to do to win.
>
>

How should we use that potential?

 
Changed:
<
<
AdamCarlis got us started on a Bill of Rights.
>
>
MichaelBrown reminds me [which I deleted because it was responding to an older draft] that Eben gave us a guiding principle: that the TWiki helps him "evaluate contributions/participation to a degree." I suppose we might infer from this a second principle, that it is supposed to be some kind of learning tool. That's all we've got. Default to anarchy and the rule of the strongest, unless we all agree to be a democracy. We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's prison experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be.
 
Changed:
<
<
democracy by default, I believe we must protect our democracy.
>
>
I say the prisoners should take over this prison. First of all, we all believe in free speech. It makes sense to deny it in class, but not here. Second, it's what Eben would do in our position. He didn't include the rules in the box, but neither does a Ouija Board. Both are remedies for denial; and you win at Ouija by making up the rules; the analogy extends to grades. And even if I'm wrong, and my made-up rules break the HIDDEN rules, we won't hang separately if we all agree to hang together: we're graded on a curve.
 
Changed:
<
<
However, [*I need to figure out a middle section that has something to do with peer pressure. It's a work in progress, but that shouldn't stop you from commenting.*] Therefore, [ ...]
>
>
So, join my revolution! We already have a Constitution.
 
Changed:
<
<
If we can advance free speech by suppressing a little free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki.
>
>

We must protect free speech.

 
Changed:
<
<
What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? Either answer on TWiki and get Eben's response next Wednesday, or don't because you're afraid of the consequences: either way, we learn the answer experimentally.
-- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008
>
>
Not by way of a rule, though. Free Speech is a social function.

AdamCarlis suggested some values. Fortunately, I don't think anyone's violated them yet. But I'd like to add: No Prior Restraint. That includes critiques that deter people from speaking freely. If suppressing those critiques advances free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole.

 
Added:
>
>
In particular, our First Amendment should bar speech by Authority Figures that discourages posts by Inferiority Figures. The opinions of Authority Figures can deter us as much as the edicts of Public Authorities. Authority Figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us confuse their descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will look stupid when we argue with those who can.
 
Added:
>
>
I am thinking of yesterday's class. Eben—God I'm playing with fire, but I'd be a coward to use the third person—Eben, I am thinking particularly of Barb's post yesterday. I would have liked

Shall we defend free speech on our TWiki, from enemies foreign and domestic? Answer here, or don't answer at all: either will answer my question.
-- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008

 
Changed:
<
<
I don't know if I can assert that I see the TWiki as being designed for free speech. I don't remember Prof. Eben presenting it as being ofr that. If anything, I remember him discussing it as a manner to evaluate contributions/participation to a degree. Because of this element, I can see some people being very concerned about what they say, how they say it, how many times they contribute etc as opposed to a townsquare. I think the Bill of Rights is an interesting idea. I might just say I think the operating norms is more useful because a Bill of Rights implies there is an enforcement mechanism. However the problem with operating norms is that unless enough of us see them and agree to them, they may not work towards a useful purpose. Sadly as I write this I wouldn't want others not to speak freely, I just feel I'm being honest about how people interact.
>
>
Eben, please don't deactivate my account.
 
Changed:
<
<
-- MichaelBrown - 25 Jan 2008
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
>
>
-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
rms

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 7 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
Changed:
<
<
I love how nothing we say in the classroom is immune to critique. Some people feel that critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Yes, our class needs free speech: It improves our ideas, promotes democracy, dignifies the marginalized.
>
>
As always, a work in progress.
I love how nothing we say in the classroom is immune to critique. Some people feel that critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Yes, our class needs free speech: It improves our ideas, promotes democracy, dignifies the marginalized.
 
Changed:
<
<
But cowing critique is not censorship when it channels speech to a more thoughtful form and a less destructive forum. The opportunity cost of speaking in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to someone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of 50 students' ideas are less helpful than others', and discourage those until we improve them, for our own good and for everyone else's. It conditions us to respect the intellectual forum.
>
>
But cowing critique is not censorship when it channels speech to a more thoughtful form and a less destructive forum. The opportunity cost of speaking in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to someone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of 50 students' ideas are most helpful. He sets an intellectual standard for the forum.
 
Changed:
<
<
For everything else, there's the TWiki. The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. Ideas interact here more like J.S. Mill expected them to, more like particles in an ideal gas (i.e. here, when we don't listen, we don't WANT to).
>
>
Ideas that fall below his standard should not be censored, but spoken in a less costly forum. Clearly the TWiki is that forum. It's possible Eben intended it as that forum. If it was not so intended, Last week, in ClassNotes17Jan08, I compared class to TWiki this way:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.
 
Changed:
<
<
Last week, in ClassNotes17Jan08, I compared class to TWiki this way:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.
>
>
The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. Ideas interact here more like J.S. Mill expected them to, more like particles in an ideal gas (i.e. here, when we don't listen, we don't WANT to). It's the best forum for us to hear each other, the safest forum for us to learn from each other, and the LAST asylum for free speech. TWiki has the potential to be our town-hall democracy.
 
Changed:
<
<
TWiki stands for town-hall democracy. We must protect our democracy. It's the best forum for us to hear each other, the safest forum for us to learn from each other, and the LAST asylum for free speech. I should thank AdamCarlis, then, for suggesting that we write a Bill of Rights.
>
>
What should we do with that potential? MichaelBrown reminds me that Eben gave us a guiding principle—that TWiki helps him "evaluate contributions/participation to a degree." I suppose we might infer from that a second principle, that this is supposed to be some kind of learning tool. That's all we've got. The default is anarchy. It's only a democracy if we all agree to it. We're reenacting Dr. Zimbardo's experiment, and now we get to decide what sort of prisoners we'll be.

I say the prisoners should take over this prison. For a few reasons. First of all, because we all believe in free speech. __. Second, for those of you who are concerned about grades, I've thought really hard about the rules of the game, and I think that's what we're supposed to do to win.

AdamCarlis got us started on a Bill of Rights.

democracy by default, I believe we must protect our democracy.

 However, [*I need to figure out a middle section that has something to do with peer pressure. It's a work in progress, but that shouldn't stop you from commenting.*] Therefore, [ ...]

If we can advance free speech by suppressing a little free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki.

Changed:
<
<
What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? If you won't risk your own hides to answer these questions here, that's fine too: Say nothing until class next week, and we will learn the answer experimentally.
>
>
What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? Either answer on TWiki and get Eben's response next Wednesday, or don't because you're afraid of the consequences: either way, we learn the answer experimentally.
 -- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 6 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
I love how nothing we say in the classroom is immune to critique. Some people feel that critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Yes, our class needs free speech: It improves our ideas, promotes democracy, dignifies the marginalized.
Line: 12 to 12
 However, [*I need to figure out a middle section that has something to do with peer pressure. It's a work in progress, but that shouldn't stop you from commenting.*] Therefore, [ ...]
Changed:
<
<
If we can advance free speech by suppressing a little free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki.
>
>
If we can advance free speech by suppressing a little free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki.
 What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? If you won't risk your own hides to answer these questions here, that's fine too: Say nothing until class next week, and we will learn the answer experimentally.
-- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 5 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.MichaelBrown
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
I love how nothing we say in the classroom is immune to critique. Some people feel that critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Yes, our class needs free speech: It improves our ideas, promotes democracy, dignifies the marginalized.
Line: 18 to 18
 -- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008
Added:
>
>

I don't know if I can assert that I see the TWiki as being designed for free speech. I don't remember Prof. Eben presenting it as being ofr that. If anything, I remember him discussing it as a manner to evaluate contributions/participation to a degree. Because of this element, I can see some people being very concerned about what they say, how they say it, how many times they contribute etc as opposed to a townsquare. I think the Bill of Rights is an interesting idea. I might just say I think the operating norms is more useful because a Bill of Rights implies there is an enforcement mechanism. However the problem with operating norms is that unless enough of us see them and agree to them, they may not work towards a useful purpose. Sadly as I write this I wouldn't want others not to speak freely, I just feel I'm being honest about how people interact.

-- MichaelBrown - 25 Jan 2008

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 4 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
Changed:
<
<
Comment freely, but please soften your critiques until I have removed this disclaimer. This is still a first draft, and I am still trying to make the words say what I MEAN. It should be ready by tomorrow morning.
>
>
I love how nothing we say in the classroom is immune to critique. Some people feel that critique suppresses free speech, scares it away. Yes, our class needs free speech: It improves our ideas, promotes democracy, dignifies the marginalized.
 
Changed:
<
<
I believe that whatever we choose to present in class, instead of on the TWiki, should be subject to vicious critique, by Eben or anyone. Some people assume that Eben's abrasive style is contrary to the values of Free Speech. Last week, in ClassNotes17Jan08, I expressed my view this way:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.
>
>
But cowing critique is not censorship when it channels speech to a more thoughtful form and a less destructive forum. The opportunity cost of speaking in a classroom is that everyone in the room—including the speaker—can't listen to someone else. A teacher with scarce time ought to judge which of 50 students' ideas are less helpful than others', and discourage those until we improve them, for our own good and for everyone else's. It conditions us to respect the intellectual forum.
 
Changed:
<
<
The opportunity cost of speaking is hearing others, and we ought to expect people not to speak in class when it prevents the rest of us from hearing better ideas of other people. Eben deserves to judge which ideas are bad ones, in the context of his class. This holds us to a high intellectual standard. If we want to improve the world, we should be prepared to wield free speech against the free speech of other passionate intellectuals. Eben's rhetorical style prepares us to defend ourselves in that forum. That is why I enjoy confronting you—not just here, on the TWiki, where no one can shut me up, but in class, where I must measure my words against opportunity cost of other people's words.
>
>
For everything else, there's the TWiki. The TWiki removes the externality of speaking on listening. Ideas interact here more like J.S. Mill expected them to, more like particles in an ideal gas (i.e. here, when we don't listen, we don't WANT to).
 
Added:
>
>
Last week, in ClassNotes17Jan08, I compared class to TWiki this way:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.
 
Changed:
<
<

Begin Garbage

>
>
TWiki stands for town-hall democracy. We must protect our democracy. It's the best forum for us to hear each other, the safest forum for us to learn from each other, and the LAST asylum for free speech. I should thank AdamCarlis, then, for suggesting that we write a Bill of Rights.
 
Changed:
<
<
Free speech promotes our values: democracy, good ideas, dignity for the marginalized. But Free Speech itself can be a "prior restraint" on speech, functionally, when it deters people from speaking freely. If I may speak for those people (for people with more social awareness than me), the opinions of Authority Figures can deter us as much as the edicts of Public Authorities. Authority Figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us were trained to respect teachers as Authority Figures. And many of us confuse descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will look stupid when we argue with those who can.
>
>
However, [*I need to figure out a middle section that has something to do with peer pressure. It's a work in progress, but that shouldn't stop you from commenting.*] Therefore, [ ...]
 
Changed:
<
<
More garbage: Words on the TWiki should not be subject to this constraint, because I think of the TWiki as our asylum That saddens me, and the TWiki is the best forum for us to hear each other, and the safest forum for us to learn from each other. None of us responded to Barb’s post online before Eben did in class. (Admittedly, her post went up just a few hours before class, so it's not like Eben pre-empted us: we were just lazy.) Eben responded generously, thoroughly, cogently. And, I imagine that Barb was looking for peer insight; perhaps that's why she raised the idea on the TWiki. Had she introduced her ideas by raising her hand in class, I worry that others may now feel uncomfortable responding—even here, on the TWiki, and not just to Barb but to others in the future. My own opinions are irrepressible, but What we say here, and what the professor says in class, is Free Speech. And we all agree that
>
>
If we can advance free speech by suppressing a little free speech, then we should sacrifice a piece for the sake of the whole. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki.
 
Changed:
<
<

End Garbage.

Maybe the values of free speech can be advanced by sacrificing a little free speech. Public speech conveys private values, and not all private speakers can be treated equally, even in the forum. Some private values are best understood by a limited audience. These ideas need to gestate there before they can be challenged publicly.

Eben, I am not saying that you, the teacher, should not critique the TWiki! The TWiki is a DMZ, not an insane asylum. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki.

What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? Am I exaggerating the chilling effects of Free Speech by Authority Figures? If you won't risk your own hides to answer these questions, that's fine too: Say nothing until class next week, and we will learn the answer experimentally.

>
>
What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? If you won't risk your own hides to answer these questions here, that's fine too: Say nothing until class next week, and we will learn the answer experimentally.
 -- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008
Added:
>
>
 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 3 - 24 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
Changed:
<
<
None of us responded to Barb’s post online before Eben did in class. I’m irrepressible, but I worry that others may now feel uncomfortable responding—even here, on the TWiki, and not just to Barb but to others in the future. That saddens me, because the TWiki is the best forum to hear each other, and the safest forum to learn from each other.
>
>
Comment freely, but please soften your critiques until I have removed this disclaimer. This is still a first draft, and I am still trying to make the words say what I MEAN. It should be ready by tomorrow morning.
 
Changed:
<
<
Last week, I would have told those classmates what I posted under ClassNotes17Jan08:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.
>
>
I believe that whatever we choose to present in class, instead of on the TWiki, should be subject to vicious critique, by Eben or anyone. Some people assume that Eben's abrasive style is contrary to the values of Free Speech. Last week, in ClassNotes17Jan08, I expressed my view this way:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.
 
Changed:
<
<
I value the power of free speech to hone ideas. If anything, Eben, your rhetorical style prepares us for the disputes we should expect if we hope to become passionate intellectuals debating other passionate intellectuals, and that is why I enjoy confronting it—here, on the TWiki, where no one can shut me up.
>
>
The opportunity cost of speaking is hearing others, and we ought to expect people not to speak in class when it prevents the rest of us from hearing better ideas of other people. Eben deserves to judge which ideas are bad ones, in the context of his class. This holds us to a high intellectual standard. If we want to improve the world, we should be prepared to wield free speech against the free speech of other passionate intellectuals. Eben's rhetorical style prepares us to defend ourselves in that forum. That is why I enjoy confronting you—not just here, on the TWiki, where no one can shut me up, but in class, where I must measure my words against opportunity cost of other people's words.
 
Deleted:
<
<
But TWiki censorship also emerges from social forces external to its rules. Free Speech that deters Free Speech is a "prior restraint" on speech, functionally if not legally. Authority figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us respect teachers as authority figures. And many of us confuse descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will default to surrender.
 
Changed:
<
<
Eben, I am not saying that you, the teacher, should not respond to the TWiki, here or in class! But maybe the values of free speech benefit by sacrificing a little free speech, and this applies to us all. Public speech conveys private values, and not all private speakers can be treated equally, even in the forum. Some ideas are best understood by a limited audience. Some ideas need to gestate publicly before they can be challenged publicly.
>
>

Begin Garbage

 
Changed:
<
<
What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? You don’t have to go out on a limb to answer these questions: Say nothing until class next week, and we will find out the answer experimentally.
>
>
Free speech promotes our values: democracy, good ideas, dignity for the marginalized. But Free Speech itself can be a "prior restraint" on speech, functionally, when it deters people from speaking freely. If I may speak for those people (for people with more social awareness than me), the opinions of Authority Figures can deter us as much as the edicts of Public Authorities. Authority Figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us were trained to respect teachers as Authority Figures. And many of us confuse descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will look stupid when we argue with those who can.

More garbage: Words on the TWiki should not be subject to this constraint, because I think of the TWiki as our asylum That saddens me, and the TWiki is the best forum for us to hear each other, and the safest forum for us to learn from each other. None of us responded to Barb’s post online before Eben did in class. (Admittedly, her post went up just a few hours before class, so it's not like Eben pre-empted us: we were just lazy.) Eben responded generously, thoroughly, cogently. And, I imagine that Barb was looking for peer insight; perhaps that's why she raised the idea on the TWiki. Had she introduced her ideas by raising her hand in class, I worry that others may now feel uncomfortable responding—even here, on the TWiki, and not just to Barb but to others in the future. My own opinions are irrepressible, but What we say here, and what the professor says in class, is Free Speech. And we all agree that

End Garbage.

Maybe the values of free speech can be advanced by sacrificing a little free speech. Public speech conveys private values, and not all private speakers can be treated equally, even in the forum. Some private values are best understood by a limited audience. These ideas need to gestate there before they can be challenged publicly.

Eben, I am not saying that you, the teacher, should not critique the TWiki! The TWiki is a DMZ, not an insane asylum. We all should critique the TWiki. But we should also shape those critiques to encourage responses, even if those responses can't survive anywhere—except the TWiki.

What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? Am I exaggerating the chilling effects of Free Speech by Authority Figures? If you won't risk your own hides to answer these questions, that's fine too: Say nothing until class next week, and we will learn the answer experimentally.

 -- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008

 
<--/commentPlugin-->
\ No newline at end of file

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 2 - 24 Jan 2008 - Main.SandorMarton
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
None of us responded to Barb’s post online before Eben did in class. I’m irrepressible, but I worry that others may now feel uncomfortable responding—even here, on the TWiki, and not just to Barb but to others in the future. That saddens me, because the TWiki is the best forum to hear each other, and the safest forum to learn from each other.

FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 1 - 24 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="ClassNotesJan24"
None of us responded to Barb’s post online before Eben did in class. I’m irrepressible, but I worry that others may now feel uncomfortable responding—even here, on the TWiki, and not just to Barb but to others in the future. That saddens me, because the TWiki is the best forum to hear each other, and the safest forum to learn from each other.

Last week, I would have told those classmates what I posted under ClassNotes17Jan08:
The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later—i.e., after thinking—i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.

I value the power of free speech to hone ideas. If anything, Eben, your rhetorical style prepares us for the disputes we should expect if we hope to become passionate intellectuals debating other passionate intellectuals, and that is why I enjoy confronting it—here, on the TWiki, where no one can shut me up.

But TWiki censorship also emerges from social forces external to its rules. Free Speech that deters Free Speech is a "prior restraint" on speech, functionally if not legally. Authority figures can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force. And many of us respect teachers as authority figures. And many of us confuse descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us can't learn to think like lawyers by learning to argue like lawyers, because we who can't yet argue like lawyers will default to surrender.

Eben, I am not saying that you, the teacher, should not respond to the TWiki, here or in class! But maybe the values of free speech benefit by sacrificing a little free speech, and this applies to us all. Public speech conveys private values, and not all private speakers can be treated equally, even in the forum. Some ideas are best understood by a limited audience. Some ideas need to gestate publicly before they can be challenged publicly.

What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, is its design successful, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? You don’t have to go out on a limb to answer these questions: Say nothing until class next week, and we will find out the answer experimentally.
-- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008

 
<--/commentPlugin-->

Revision 17r17 - 11 Jan 2010 - 16:54:17 - IanSullivan
Revision 16r16 - 01 Feb 2008 - 15:16:55 - AndrewGradman
Revision 15r15 - 29 Jan 2008 - 14:32:56 - EbenMoglen
Revision 14r14 - 29 Jan 2008 - 03:06:10 - EbenMoglen
Revision 13r13 - 26 Jan 2008 - 07:26:02 - AndrewGradman
Revision 12r12 - 26 Jan 2008 - 06:12:28 - MakalikaNaholowaa
Revision 11r11 - 26 Jan 2008 - 02:35:44 - BarbPitman
Revision 10r10 - 26 Jan 2008 - 02:03:54 - AndrewGradman
Revision 9r9 - 25 Jan 2008 - 23:47:40 - DanielHarris
Revision 8r8 - 25 Jan 2008 - 23:44:23 - AndrewGradman
Revision 7r7 - 25 Jan 2008 - 16:48:00 - AndrewGradman
Revision 6r6 - 25 Jan 2008 - 06:40:16 - AndrewGradman
Revision 5r5 - 25 Jan 2008 - 05:50:35 - MichaelBrown
Revision 4r4 - 25 Jan 2008 - 05:07:17 - AndrewGradman
Revision 3r3 - 24 Jan 2008 - 22:56:48 - AndrewGradman
Revision 2r2 - 24 Jan 2008 - 21:25:41 - SandorMarton
Revision 1r1 - 24 Jan 2008 - 21:24:54 - AndrewGradman
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM