|
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 12 - 26 Jan 2008 - Main.MakalikaNaholowaa
|
| |
| 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." | | |
-- BarbPitman - 26 Jan 2008 | |
>
> |
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 | | | rms |
|
|
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 11 - 26 Jan 2008 - Main.BarbPitman
|
| |
| 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." | | | 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 | |
>
> |
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 | | | rms |
|
|
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 10 - 26 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
|
| |
| 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 | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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? | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | We must protect free speech. | >
> | We must protect free (TWiki) speech. | | | | |
<
< | 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?). | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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! | | | | |
<
< | 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 | |
<
< | Eben, please don't deactivate my account. | >
> | Please don't deactivate my account. | | | -- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008 |
|
|
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 9 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.DanielHarris
|
| |
| 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." | | | Eben, 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.
-- DanielHarris - 25 Jan 2008 | | | rms |
|
|
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 8 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ClassNotesJan24" |
|---|
| |
<
< | 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." | | | | |
<
< | 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 | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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? | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
>
> | 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. | | | | |
>
> | 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 | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | -- MichaelBrown - 25 Jan 2008
| >
> | -- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008
rms |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|