Free speech, grounded in the principle of dispersed knowledge and “epistemic modesty” championed by Hayek, is far less dangerous than censorship, which empowers a self-appointed elite to enforce their biases on others, says Paul Marshall

It is always dangerous to make binary distinctions, as they are over simplistic – but in the debate over free speech and censorship it can be a helpful starting place. For in this debate there are really two alternative poles. At one end of the spectrum are those who prefer to embrace the noise of the public square and trust the people to ensure that truth will emerge from the cauldron. This is the preferred model of Elon Musk and of the free speech absolutists. At the other extreme is rule by censorship, with truth determined and safeguarded by a narrow and self-appointed group of “experts”.

At the free speech end of the spectrum you run the risk of giving voice to insalubrious characters and bad ideas. At the censorship end of the spectrum you also run the risk of bad ideas but you couple that with the clear danger of giving excessive power to a small and unaccountable cadre of bureaucrats. Both models produce bad ideas, but the censorship model is much more dangerous as it can lead to bad ideas, like excessive lockdowns and net zero, gaining much more extensive and dangerous sway.

Beware the fatal conceit

Belief in a self-appointed cadre who should make decisions on our behalf, is nothing new and has deep philosophical roots which arguably go all the way back to Plato, who had reservations about Athenian democracy. He felt that the majority were not educated or intelligent enough to rule themselves well........

© City A.M.