Skepticism and Freedom of Speech

I've been grappling with a simple dilema -- How do you balance a love for the freedom of speech with a skeptical outlook toward cults and religions that infringe upon people's rights? I'm specifically thinking about scientology in that their response to criticism is intimidation and harrassment, which seems to me to subvert the marketplace of ideas in such a way as to make freedom of speech moot. How do you defend freedom of speech when people use it do suppress the freedom of speech?

I am pretty sure that the south park episodes have damned scientology to being a fringe movement forever, and that such ridicule is the best way to deal with yahoos, but the philisophical side to this argument intrigues me.

Kage

Kage said:

I've been grappling with a simple dilema -- How do you balance a love for the freedom of speech with a skeptical outlook toward cults and religions that infringe upon people's rights?

Click to expand...

Don't people who join cults voluntarily give up their rights? I agree, when they change their minds, the cult then may actively surpress them, but I figure since they are rights, any person may waive them (their own that is).

Kage said:

I'm specifically thinking about scientology in that their response to criticism is intimidation and harrassment, which seems to me to subvert the marketplace of ideas in such a way as to make freedom of speech moot. How do you defend freedom of speech when people use it do suppress the freedom of speech?

Click to expand...

I don't agree that they use the freedom of speech to suppress freedom of speech. They use freedom of speech to exist (which I have no problem with), but then they use their influence and often flat out break the law to attack their critics. The freedom of speech comes with libel and slander laws which are double edged swords which are used for and against Scientology. But the Scientologists are not using freedom of speech to get their way, they are using unethical and often illegal tactics which I think is a whole different story.

Kage said:

I am pretty sure that the south park episodes have damned scientology to being a fringe movement forever, and that such ridicule is the best way to deal with yahoos, but the philisophical side to this argument intrigues me.

Kage

Click to expand...

I love SP, but don't overestimate their influence. I'm confident the majority of Americans could not identify Cartman - or at least wouldn't base any opinions on what Matt and Trey think. I'm sure somebody 150 years ago said roughly the same thing about the Mormons when newspapers were printing all of their criticisms of John Smith. They now have a candidate for president.

The distance between fringe and mainstream is unfortunately closer than one may think.

Voltaire said it best:"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

Unless Scientology has somehow abolished the First Amendment, they can rant and rave all they want.

MWare said:

Don't people who join cults voluntarily give up their rights? I agree, when they change their minds, the cult then may actively surpress them, but I figure since they are rights, any person may waive them (their own that is).

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I am more concerned with people who are outside the group.

MWare said:

I don't agree that they use the freedom of speech to suppress freedom of speech. They use freedom of speech to exist (which I have no problem with), but then they use their influence and often flat out break the law to attack their critics. The freedom of speech comes with libel and slander laws which are double edged swords which are used for and against Scientology. But the Scientologists are not using freedom of speech to get their way, they are using unethical and often illegal tactics which I think is a whole different story.

Click to expand...

What I am talking about specifically is both the use of confessions (sometimes given under duress) during auditing sessions and the use of the court system to silence critics. Since Scientologists don't sign NDAs when they audit someone, they aren't legally bound to not disclose things said during an auditing session. Scientologists are also allowed access to our court system and I would not try to deny them such access. However, they use this information and acess in order to bully and intimidate their enemies and to specifically deter them from using their right to free speech.

MWare said:

I love SP, but don't overestimate their influence. I'm confident the majority of Americans could not identify Cartman - or at least wouldn't base any opinions on what Matt and Trey think. I'm sure somebody 150 years ago said roughly the same thing about the Mormons when newspapers were printing all of their criticisms of John Smith. They now have a candidate for president.

The distance between fringe and mainstream is unfortunately closer than one may think.

Click to expand...

The pyramid nature of scientology means that their organization needs growth in order to survive. The SP episode most assuradly exposed a large portion of the population to Xenu and the like, thus cutting off their viewership from recruitment and cramping the potential growth for the COS. What is more is that they made the COS look ridiculous. The KKK was once a mainstream organization, but once they were made the object of ridicule they were forced to the fringe. It is a lot easier to join an organization that is seen as evil or heretical than it is to join one that is seen as dopey and stupid.

Kage said:

Scientologists are also allowed access to our court system and I would not try to deny them such access. However, they use this information and acess in order to bully and intimidate their enemies and to specifically deter them from using their right to free speech.

Click to expand...

So does (did) Karl Rove. I understand your point, but the lady holding the scales has that damn blindfold on.

Kage said:

The pyramid nature of scientology means that their organization needs growth in order to survive. The SP episode most assuradly exposed a large portion of the population to Xenu and the like, thus cutting off their viewership from recruitment and cramping the potential growth for the COS. What is more is that they made the COS look ridiculous. The KKK was once a mainstream organization, but once they were made the object of ridicule they were forced to the fringe. It is a lot easier to join an organization that is seen as evil or heretical than it is to join one that is seen as dopey and stupid.

Click to expand...

I thought the KKK went down because federal prosecutors actually starting prosecuting them for their crimes (as opposed to leaving those matters to the local authorities). That is my point here, the law is a double edged sword. Hopefully, some high-ranking scientologist is going to go too far or pick on the wrong critic and bring the weight of the law down on their heads (they've come close a few times in the US and the German courts certainly aren't putting up with them anymore). Sunlight being the best disinfectant, I think it is freedom of speech that will bring down COS if they do ever fall. I think limiting any of COS' speech will have the reverse effect.

The Vampire said:

Voltaire said it best:"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

Unless Scientology has somehow abolished the First Amendment, they can rant and rave all they want.

Click to expand...

Voltaire didn't say that. That's one of the most misattributed and famously misattributed quotes in history, like how everyone knows that Ilsa Lund didn't say "Play it again, Sam".

Even though Voltaire didn't say it, he sure as hell should have or at least taken credit for it cause it couldn't be truer.

Actually, there are lots of limits on "free speech", and there should be. There are libel and slander laws. There are "incitement to riot" laws. There are "truth in advertising" laws.

The basic rule is, "your right to swing your fist ends where my chin begins." You cannot say things that will cause serious harm to people. Of course, defining what "serious harm" is can be difficult, to say the least. Do Scientologists deriously hurt people by lying to them, tricking them into submission and then brainwashing them? I think a good case can be made that they do. Certainly other cults have been arrested for this sort of behavior.

Does any religion do serious harm? That's not a very easy case to make, seeing as how such a large percentage of our population is religious.

Yes, and laws restricting the publication of nuclear weapon secrets and the like, i.e. what the NYTimes got in trouble for with the Pentagon Papers (I believe it was). Although even then, they won the lawsuit against them.

MWare said:

I thought the KKK went down because federal prosecutors actually starting prosecuting them for their crimes (as opposed to leaving those matters to the local authorities). That is my point here, the law is a double edged sword. Hopefully, some high-ranking scientologist is going to go too far or pick on the wrong critic and bring the weight of the law down on their heads (they've come close a few times in the US and the German courts certainly aren't putting up with them anymore). Sunlight being the best disinfectant, I think it is freedom of speech that will bring down COS if they do ever fall. I think limiting any of COS' speech will have the reverse effect.

Click to expand...

I remember having a discussion with a friend about a cartoonist in alabama who made fun of the KKK and was credited with significantly lowering their status in the state. Might not be true, I do not know. I do know that they are now seen as backward hicks, and I like it that way.

I agree, and wasn't saying that their speech should be limited. I'm not a fan of their tax free status, but that is another story. What I am saying is that scientology pushes my ability to love the first amendment and hate the speech in a very specific way. Does Germany have the answer when they outlaw the COS? Part of me says yes and the other part says no. That is where I am coming from. As it stands I do not agree with Germany's outlawing of scientology, but I also believe that the COS is harmful to the first amendment in a definite way.

EeneyMinnieMoe said:

Voltaire didn't say that. That's one of the most misattributed and famously misattributed quotes in history, like how everyone knows that Ilsa Lund didn't say "Play it again, Sam".

Even though Voltaire didn't say it, he sure as hell should have or at least taken credit for it cause it couldn't be truer.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected then.

Limiting Scientology's free speech because we (skeptics) do not like Scientology is special pleading. Special pleading has a bad habit of coming back at a later date to bite one in the ass.

Kage said:

I remember having a discussion with a friend about a cartoonist in alabama who made fun of the KKK and was credited with significantly lowering their status in the state. Might not be true, I do not know. I do know that they are now seen as backward hicks, and I like it that way.

I agree, and wasn't saying that their speech should be limited. I'm not a fan of their tax free status, but that is another story. What I am saying is that scientology pushes my ability to love the first amendment and hate the speech in a very specific way. Does Germany have the answer when they outlaw the COS? Part of me says yes and the other part says no. That is where I am coming from. As it stands I do not agree with Germany's outlawing of scientology, but I also believe that the COS is harmful to the first amendment in a definite way.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you on the tax stuff, and I stop well short of recommending a German-flavored 1st amendment. I believe COS is harmful in MANY ways, but we only know this because the freedom of speech protects those who speak out (like clambake.org). But, as we often hear, there are prices to pay for freedom - and I agree freedom for us, allows some degree of abuse of freedom by them.

I still don't think Scientology, for all their money and influence, have any real ability to hurt the principle of the 1st amendment. I agree with everything you say about their auditing practices, but nobody is forcing anybody to sit in that room. The best weapon against Scientology and these sorts of tactics is groups like the JREF. And while it seems possible that Scientology may eventually earn the respect that religions like Mormonism have, I don't think they'll ever have any effect on the rights of the rest of us who don't willingly follow them into their volcano.

Kage said:

I remember having a discussion with a friend about a cartoonist in alabama who made fun of the KKK and was credited with significantly lowering their status in the state. Might not be true, I do not know. I do know that they are now seen as backward hicks, and I like it that way.

Click to expand...

Some people also consider a major PR blow to the Klan to be...I kid you not...the Superman radio program on which the Man of Steel fought the KKK in the 1940's. Fun bit of history.

A more serious question about skepticism and free speech revolves around our personal protection from libel/slander/defamy charges.

A few months ago, the Belgian skeptic society lost a very serious lawsuit and is broke. Their error was to call a particular healthcare practitioner a - gasp - "quack."

She took them to the cleaners, because she argued that they were openly accusing her of criminal activity, when what she was doing was quite legal.

Granted, this revolved around the definition of quack, but the point is that free speech is threatened by SLAPP defamy civil suits &c, and skeptics are vulnerable.

Recall that P&T point out on their show that they call their targets everything under the sun, but stop short of actually accusing them of committing a crime. eg: 'a**holes', but not 'thieves'.


This is not new: James Randi originally established the JREF as a legal protection against Uri Geller, so that his personal assets (home, &c) would not be at risk if Geller went to town on him for something said in public. Geller almost bankrupted Randi in the 1970s. This example remains a lesson for skeptics who, like Randi, want to step up and make a difference.

I think libel and slander laws should be as weak as possible in the interests of free speech and should be heavily skewed towards the defendent.

Politicians and quacks need to be called out and journalists need to be provided with a safety net that allows them to do that without fear of repercussions. While allowing for irresponsibility or lying that causes serious harm to a person's career or personal life to be taken to court.

TheCzech said:

Some people also consider a major PR blow to the Klan to be...I kid you not...the Superman radio program on which the Man of Steel fought the KKK in the 1940's. Fun bit of history.

Click to expand...

That was Stetson Kennedy who infiltrated the Klan and helped create that Superman episode. I read about this in the Freakanomics book.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution only guarantees that the Federal government will not limit freedom of speech. Private groups like corporations, cults, churches can indeed limit the freedom of speech of anyone via legal means. That being said, blackmail, intimidation and coercion are not legal means. There are criminal laws against that type of activity. Also, civil laws against defamation, libel and slander come into play against COS tactics.

The problem is that the civil justice system is so fabulously expensive to enjoy. If you're not independently wealthy or have a very strong, lucrative case, you won't be able to find an attorney willing to tackle the case. All is not lost, however, as you can find an attorney who will work at it just long enough to get you to an out-of-court settlement.

The latest heroes in the case of the KKK was the Southern Poverty Law Center, headed by Morris Dees. They brought several cases against the KKK in several states and bankrupted that bunch of hooligans. When the law works, it's a thing of beauty. When it doesn't, it's a national shame.

EeneyMinnieMoe said:

I think libel and slander laws should be as weak as possible in the interests of free speech and should be heavily skewed towards the defendent.

Politicians and quacks need to be called out and journalists need to be provided with a safety net that allows them to do that without fear of repercussions. While allowing for irresponsibility or lying that causes serious harm to a person's career or personal life to be taken to court.

Click to expand...

This is the distinction between the US and British Commonwealth approaches: in the UK, Canada, and a lot of other countries, the defendant has to prove they were telling the truth, whereas in the US, the plaintiff has to prove the defendant was spreading falsehoods.

This is why David Irving waited for Lipstadt's book to be published in the UK: in the US, he would have had the burden of proof that he was being libelled; in the UK, Lipstadt had to prove that she was not libelling Irving.


Having said that, trade speech is different, even in the US, and not covered in the same way as personal speech under the First Amendment. For example, when Amway salesmen were saying that Proctor & Gamble contributed part of their profits to satanists, they were required to prove that their claims were true: P&G was not required to demonstrate that these claims were false.


No, the real risk is that skeptics can make claims that are actually false, and this means we *** really did *** slander the plaintiff. If the falsehood in question led to a material impact on their income, they are entitled to expect compensation. Freedom comes with responsibility, and just because the government isn't entitled to curb our speech, doesn't mean a legitemately injured party isn't entitled to justice. Like it or not, a lot of our targets are operating within the law.

The World is a Collection of Cults.....

Kage said:

I've been grappling with a simple dilema -- How do you balance a love for the freedom of speech with a skeptical outlook toward cults and religions that infringe upon people's rights? I'm specifically thinking about scientology in that their response to criticism is intimidation and harrassment, which seems to me to subvert the marketplace of ideas in such a way as to make freedom of speech moot. How do you defend freedom of speech when people use it do suppress the freedom of speech?
(snipped)

Kage

Click to expand...

The world is made up of cults. From the time you exit the womb the cults are vying for your membership.
Political systems are cults....
Organized religions are cults....
consumerism is a cult....
educational institutions are cults....

They all (non inclusive list) have belief systems that they attempt to embed into your consciousness.

The result of the Western Consumerism Cult is to have 100,000 price tags embedded in your mind.

Any alleged (quote) " ...infringe(ment) upon people's rights" (end quote) is the voice of yet another cult because "People's rights" is a fiction created by a political cult.

Excuse me but I must now go outsdide and chop down a tree (Christmas), put it into my home and into water and then wire it with electricity because some guy wearing a pointy hat in Rome says so.

My proposed definition of "Cult" is a group that has a belief that is contrary to the beliefs of the cult that I am in.