For the sake of truth: why lies matter

In light of Trump´s removal from virtually every social media platform under the sun that is setting on American democracy, the ancient debate over the blurry and bloody borders of freedom of speech has been reignited. In Trump’s case it is both his written and spoken word which has for a long time found him walking the narrow line which determines the limits of the only right that outranks the right to bear arms in the US. Freedom of speech holds importance in terms of its formal constitutionality and its importance to the American psyche. 

While the legal grounds for condemning Trump´s words on the 6th of January are shaky at best, the moral grounds for condemnation are too strong to need reiteration. The direct incitation of violence, or even its retroactive justification, as Trump indulged in, cannot and should not ever be defended under the guise of freedom of speech. It both legitimizes violence and delegitimizes the all-important concept of freedom of speech. 

Freedom of speech holds importance in terms of its formal constitutionality and its importance to the American psyche

The sole, but nevertheless pressing, remaining question concerns how lies such as Trump´s narrative of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, regurgitated by a far bigger online mob than that present at the Capitol on January 6th, are to be treated. That they should be condemned, I hope, is beyond doubt. But that they should be unrestricted in their expression is a view I both wish to defend and yet fear is not as widely shared as the former by those who, like me, would have enjoyed seeing Trump not merely removed from Twitter but the office he disgraced. 

John Stuart Mill famously offered three arguments against any form of censorship of opinions in On Liberty. The first, that silenced opinions might contain a truth, can comfortably be deemed irrelevant in respect to the wild and unfounded allegations of voter fraud. But Mill´s second argument is one that has been both presented and rejected widely in the current discussion. It proceeds as follows: only by allowing those with dissenting views to participate in our societal discourse can we ever wish to change their mind. Opponents of such an argument are right to point out the previously unseen levels of radicalization and indoctrination on the side of those extreme right groups that inhabited Parler and before that the shadiest places of Twitter and Facebook. We nevertheless shouldn’t yet rule out any possibility of them changing their minds. As a result of the, thankfully, peaceful inauguration of Biden, Twitter was flooded with Q-Anon conspiracists that complained of having been conned and felt that they had been lied to by those propagating truly insane conspiracy theories. No one in their right mind would suggest that these Americans now suddenly support President Biden, but to suggest that open dialogue and engagement might not pave a way towards reintegrating them into civil society seems to be equally unsound. 

We should not merely take our truths for granted, but constantly reflect and let others challenge them

However, it is Mill´s third argument which I believe we should pay the most considerable attention to. Only through actively defending what we, most likely very correctly, hold to be true against those who dissent can we make sure to escape dogmatism. Dogmatism is not the wrongness of what is held to be true; it is the inability to defend it when necessary. And that time will come again where, even the most basic truths we, or at least any American pledges to, hold to be self-evident, will need defending against a more dangerous enemy than a few hundred people storming one building. But if we do not start now to defend the truth, the necessity and beauty, of these values against those disillusioned few, how can we learn to defend them against more substantial enemies in the future? I would like to add one more argument to Mill´s original three. In constantly defending our beliefs, we not only mitigate against powerlessness in face of greater threats, but also learn to appreciate the beauty and necessity of these truths we believe in. We should not merely take our truths for granted, but constantly reflect and let others challenge them. In doing so we will not only feel our truth more acutely but also appreciate the value of said truth. 

It is thus for the sake of truth that we need not only defend the right to express lies but actively engage with them wherever we encounter them. Rather than fall prey to the temptation of an easy yet fatally short sighted solution of censorship. Not merely to spread truth, but to secure it against dogmatisation and our ensuing inability to defend what we hold to be true beyond the means of censorship. And last but not least, by constantly defending it against lies, we learn to appreciate the value of what we believe and the value of its truth.