Krasemann - Blog Post 7

In Chapter 3 of Speech Matters, Seana Shiffrin explores the thinker-based approach as it pertains to freedom of thought, speech, and communication. In the early part of the chapter, she mentions that “I group freedom of thought and freedom of communication together under “freedom of speech”” (81). I consider these two to be relatively distinct and would like to further explore the underlying distinction. This discussion also relates to my interest in societal thought control, for that restricts the freedom of thought, but not necessarily the freedom of communication.

 

Shiffrin explains an approach that “includes, at the foundation of the free speech protection, condemnation of efforts in thought control and other measures that disrupt the free operation of the mind” (94). How is it possible to control a mind? Furthermore, this assertion seems to imply that the freedom of thought, but not that of communication, can be restricted under thought control. A potential example of thought control I consider is social media. Certain social media apps target content and ads to best guide a user’s interactive experience to make it as enjoyable as possible. Can this be considered a restriction in the freedom of thought? We, as social media users, may not be aware of the manipulation that takes place behind our screens. However, this does not excuse the fact our freedom of thought is being not only manipulated but also restricted. Considering news outlets, a search engine will show results that most align with your political views. That being said, you are most likely receiving biased information in a format that appears non-biased. Does this not constitute a violation of the freedom of thought? On the other hand, I find that this manipulation at the hands of social media and the internet does not interfere with the freedom of communication. In fact, it may enhance it. This is one notable distinction I observe between the freedom of thought and the freedom of communication.

 

Another example involves the education system, which Shiffrin investigates in a different context. Compulsory education exists throughout the United States. In other words, children are not given a choice about attending school. Shiffrin explains that “a thinker-based approach may offer different and more straightforward arguments for protecting the freedom of speech of children and the mentally disabled than other prominent theories” (103). If children are required to go to school, does this not affect their subsequent formulation of thought? Children may have the freedom to explore thought under the restricted umbrella of the education system. I understand that certain restrictions in society are necessary to ensure societal peace and progress, such as not resorting to violence when feeling angry. However, the requirement to attend school seems to be a subtle initiative to restrict the freedom of thought. Education shapes the minds of young adults and influences their futures. On the other hand, I do not consider required education to restrict the freedom of communication. It only appears to restrict the freedom of thought, which draws another distinction between the two.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more