|
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 7 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
|
| |
| 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. | >
> | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | |
<
< | 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
|
| |
| 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. | | | 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. | >
> | 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
|
| |
| 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. | | | -- 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.
-- MichaelBrown - 25 Jan 2008 | | | |
|
|
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 4 - 25 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ClassNotesJan24" |
|---|
| |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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). | | | | |
>
> | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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, [ ...] | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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 | |
>
> | | | | |
|
|
FreeSpeechHowwhywhether 3 - 24 Jan 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
|
| |
| 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. | >
> | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Begin Garbage | | | | |
<
< | 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
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|