Ukraine War Update EXTRA: Freedom of Speech
Table of Contents 📖
"Rights don't really exist, they only exist when we construct them."
Hello Team
🎦 00:00-00:12⏩
Jonathan Pearce welcomes viewers to an ATP Geopolitics video that delves into philosophy and its relevance to the Ukraine war. He explains that the video will focus on freedom of speech and could also fit on his main philosophy channel.
Return to top⤴️
RT France Closure and a Viewer Comment
🎦 00:12-02:29⏩
Jonathan discusses the closure of RT France following sanctions. He reads a viewer comment arguing that censorship is dangerous, even when targeting propaganda, and that freedom of speech is absolute. The commenter claims Jonathan is "blind to the danger of censorship" and questions Jonathan's understanding of the subject. Jonathan acknowledges some agreement with the commenter but highlights the problematic nature of their argument, particularly from a philosophical perspective.
Return to top⤴️
Freedom of Speech is Not Absolute
🎦 02:29-04:51⏩
Jonathan addresses the commenter's assertion about absolute freedom of speech. He points out the hypocrisy of criticising the West while ignoring Russia's complete suppression of dissenting voices. He argues that freedom of speech exists on a continuum, not as a binary, and uses examples like a child screaming in a classroom to illustrate the conflict of rights. He questions whether the commenter would defend hate speech or incitement to violence as legitimate expressions of free speech.
Return to top⤴️
Free Market of Ideas and its Flaws
🎦 04:51-07:25⏩
Jonathan draws a parallel between the commenter's view on freedom of speech and free-market economics. He critiques the concept of homo economicus – the idea of perfectly rational actors with complete information – and cites Daniel Kahneman's work on cognitive biases and irrational decision-making. He argues that disinformation preys on these vulnerabilities, necessitating regulation and censorship as interventions.
Return to top⤴️
The Social Contract and Limits of Freedom
🎦 07:25-08:45⏩
Jonathan argues that the commenter's absolutist view of freedom of speech would not hold up in other contexts, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre or making threats. He emphasizes that rights are not absolute but are socially constructed and subject to limitations based on context and potential harm.
Return to top⤴️
The Construction of Rights
🎦 08:45-11:01⏩
Jonathan delves into the philosophical nature of rights, arguing that they are human constructs, not inherent. He identifies himself as a conceptual nominalist, explaining that abstract ideas only exist within our minds. He uses dictionaries and the UN Charter of Human Rights as examples of codified agreements, emphasizing that their effectiveness relies on enforcement and shared understanding.
Return to top⤴️
Rights are Context-Dependent
🎦 11:01-12:51⏩
Jonathan reinforces the idea that rights are context-dependent using the example of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the US, which doesn't apply in the UK. He highlights the evolving nature of rights, referencing the amendment of the US Constitution to abolish slavery. He emphasizes that rights are not fixed truths but are subject to change through social and political processes.
Return to top⤴️
The Sorites Paradox and the Fuzziness of Concepts
🎦 12:51-17:33⏩
Jonathan introduces the Sorites Paradox, explaining it through the analogy of a heap of sand and a beard. He uses this paradox to illustrate the difficulty of defining clear boundaries for concepts that exist on a spectrum. He extends this to the species problem in evolution, arguing that distinctions are often arbitrary and conceptually constructed rather than objectively real.
Return to top⤴️
Freedom of Speech on a Continuum
🎦 17:33-18:46⏩
Jonathan applies the concept of continua to freedom of speech, arguing that its level of restriction varies across societies. He suggests that the optimal level of restriction is a matter of ongoing debate, with no single right answer. He positions Russia as having highly restricted speech, while the West allows more freedom, but still not absolute freedom.
Return to top⤴️
The Role of Government in Regulating Speech
🎦 18:46-20:59⏩
Jonathan discusses the role of government in regulating speech to ensure a safe and functioning society. He argues against complete freedom of speech, as it can lead to harm and the spread of dangerous ideas. He equates freedom of speech with freedom of action, suggesting there's no fundamental difference when either can cause harm. He emphasises the importance of government intervention to protect both physical and mental health.
Return to top⤴️
The Case of RT and Disinformation
🎦 20:59-25:47⏩
Jonathan revisits the RT closure, arguing that the spread of disinformation can lead to dangerous consequences, such as support for autocratic regimes and war. He reiterates the point about the varying abilities of people to discern truth from falsehoods, justifying government intervention to mitigate the harm caused by disinformation. He compares the spread of disinformation to selling harmful pills disguised as sweets, highlighting the government's role in protecting citizens from such dangers.
Return to top⤴️
Censorship During Wartime
🎦 25:47-28:05⏩
Jonathan discusses the historical precedent of censorship during wartime, referencing the suppression of Nazi sympathisers in the UK during World War II. He argues that allowing enemy propaganda to circulate freely during wartime is not pragmatically sound. He suggests that the EU's decision to shut down RT is justifiable, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict.
Return to top⤴️
Philosophical Underpinnings
🎦 28:05-28:54⏩
Jonathan briefly touches on the philosophical underpinnings of his arguments, mentioning the ontology of abstract ideas and contrasting his anti-realist stance with Plato's theory of Forms. He reiterates his view that ideas are constructed rather than discovered.
Return to top⤴️
Wrap Up
🎦 28:54-29:14⏩
Jonathan thanks his viewers, asks for likes, subscriptions, and shares, and acknowledges that the video might have been a bit different from his usual content. He expresses appreciation for his audience's support.
Return to top⤴️
