Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Censorship, even of false belief, harms both those whose speech is suppressed and their audience.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Some speech acts constitute harm in themselves, not merely as causes of downstream harm—a point developed by Rae Langton on pornography as illocutionary silencing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If suppressing certain speech actually restores the epistemic agency of marginalized audiences, censorship can expand rather than contract the deliberative resources available to a community.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's harm principle already permits restricting liberty when it damages others, so censorship of genuinely harmful speech is internally consistent with the Millian framework, not a departure from it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plato's argument in the Republic holds that a well-ordered epistemic community requires gatekeeping falsehoods that corrupt the rational faculty of citizens before deliberation can occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If sustained exposure to sophisticated disinformation degrades the very cognitive capacities needed for Millian deliberation, permitting such speech is self-undermining and cannot be justified by appeal to the deliberative process it destroys.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Individuals need shared thought and discussion to justify their beliefs and actions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Suppressing speech removes epistemic resources that speakers and audiences rely on for justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even false beliefs, when discussed, contribute to the deliberative process that yields justified true belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.