Protecting and Promoting Dissent and Free Expression: an Evolutionary Perspective

-- By ThomasHou? - 01 Dec 2011

"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. . . . [W]e apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. . . . We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. . . . [F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Why do we have the First Amendment? To have free expression. Why do we have free expression? Thomas I. Emerson grouped the reasons into four: 1) assuring individual self-fulfillment, a cornerstone of Western philosophical thought; 2) attaining truth and knowledge through debate and a "marketplace of ideas"; 3) providing for universal participation in decision making; and 4) achieving an adaptable yet stable community. I believe the last one is more important than ever in the information age. The basic premise is: free expression allows for the development and sharing of new ideas - which often comes through a form of dissent - while suppression shutters those new ideas in favor of old ideas and stultification. A society needs new ideas and flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances and to achieve social progress.

Evolution theory provides a useful analogy. In nature, individual organisms, even those that live in "societies" like man does, live in a changing and unpredictable environment. Within a species or genus, individuals possess different traits that produce various advantages or disadvantages according to natural conditions. That variation allows a species to survive and prosper - those with favorable traits survive and pass them along to the next generation. For humans in societies, the same theory should hold true. The world is changing, faster than ever, and is unpredictable. Beyond our physical differences, it is our intellectual differences that distinguish ourselves and our societies. Unlike natural traits, intellectual traits and ideas can be self-developed and expressed, so long as society tolerates them. Having intellectual diversity and promoting it allows society to develop new ideas and question old ideas. This process prevents social conformity and stagnation, and allows a society to adapt to and thrive in a changing world.

Conventional wisdom says sociocultural evolution is Lamarckian, i.e. through acquired inheritance of culture from generation to generation. While I do not dispute the overall Lamarckian theory, I think cultural evolution at the individual level, and the agency from individual to social, is Darwinian. After all, all culture must start from individuals and they individually and as a group practice and carry on culture from time to time. At that individual level, creativity is essential and one's contributions shape a society's culture. Bob Dylan's expression through his songs heralded the culture of the 60s and the protest era. Galileo's expression of his scientific discoveries ushered in acceptance of the heliocentric theory and a new scientific culture. Both occurred through acts of self-expression and in dissent within cultures of social conformity. We in retrospect, looking at these examples and others from history, appreciate the importance of individual free expression to a culture of social progress.

This theory holds true more than ever today. Free expression drives innovation. Developing new ideas and ways of communicating them to the public is vital. We have more tools. But we still need to do it. And on the world wide web, we need to protect not only those with new ideas, but also those who receive and can benefit from the new ideas. They can share and experiment with new ideas, and challenge old ideas. This is a "democratic culture," which Jack Balkin describes as a place where ordinary citizens can participate in digital creativity and not just be passive observers or consumers. Our free expression culture must be maintained and strengthened to achieve that end.

Another perspective