In the marketplace of ideas, all viewpoints are allowed to exist on an equal playing field. Whatever has the most evidence behind it, usually the truth, will win in a fight against other ideals. This is a key part of our ability to think critically. If we cannot examine each idea and find the truth and falsities behind it, then we are not examining each idea carefully enough.
The marketplace of ideas allows everyone to look at popular choices in modes of thinking available, and then look at what backs up those routes. If they are not satisfied with what they find, they can also choose to pursue their own personal viewpoint and present it to others to be studied.
I find this to be the most important because it feels like it encapsulates all of the other values in some way, shape, or form. Whether it's promoting tolerance, protecting dissent, or allowing someone to express themselves freely, this all takes place in the marketplace of ideas. Everything happens within that model and whether it's "accepted" as fact or not also occurs in that space.
The marketplace of ideas is active whenever someone expresses a viewpoint that may or may not be seen as valid by the bystanders. It occurs both online and in person, even though most modern examples are on social media. I unfortunately very rarely share the same view as those that I see on social media when they're expressing a political viewpoint. However, I know that this is simply a part of participating in society as a whole, so I see the value in that idea being shared. The marketplace of ideas should never be hindered by the government or other outside forces, and when it is that leads to the downfall of free speech itself. The marketplace of ideas breaks down when someone is not allowed to express themselves because of vague oversight from authorities in power.
Throughout middle and high school, I went to an academy that severely restricted what viewpoints we were and were not allowed to express. In their effort to "raise us up as members of the church" (which was their main selling point to get parents to send children to the school), they would not allow us to think critically about what we were learning or participating in. We had classes dedicated to discussion where the discussions itself were not allowed to be held. I remember a specific instance where we were told to consider the rule of honoring thy father and thy mother, and whether we thought there was an exception. When we went through every reason we thought there could or should be an exception, we were expressing our viewpoint on the rule and how it can be changed or improved. We believed that we would not be punished for having these views and let them into the marketplace freely. However, we were then told that trying to find any sort of condition to the rule was us trying to be disobedient, and that that was a problem in and of itself. Attempting to participate in the marketplace was considered a "grievous sin" that pointed to a deeper, innate issue that cannot be fixed outside of prayer. We were not allowed to freely examine different views, and the marketplace broke down as a direct result. Little to none of the students participated in the class afterwards, since the only time we were eager for the graded discussion we were shot down. Our abilities to enrich ourselves with critical thinking and use the class to its potential were cut off. This makes it where the marketplace is, by far, the most important part of our free speech, since impeding its progress leads to others not feeling they can exercise their speech at all.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment