The Decencies of Debate
Abusive language, straw-man arguments and downright ‘fake news’ should have no place in civilised debate, but censoring them is far worse.
1858
Queen Victoria 1837-1901
A debating society, by Isaac Cruikshank.
By Isaac Cruikshank (1764-1811), Wikimedia Commons. Licence: Public domain.
A cartoon by Scottish artist Isaac Cruikshank (1764–1811), father of the more famous George, showing a debating society grappling with the motion ‘Whether a man’s wig should be dress’d with honey or mustard?’. “Silence, gentlemen! to order, only ten speak at a time!” runs a caption below. “For if you all bray together it’s impossible to decide on this important question.” Cruikshank helpfully draws a donkey into the window to underline the key verb. John Stuart Mill deprecated uncivil language in debate, but believed that policing it hands too much power to the dominant party. The only equitable solution is not to police it at all, and remember that few people are ever persuaded by it.
Introduction
Addressing the issue of freedom of speech, John Stuart Mill turned his attention in On Liberty to the use of uncivil discourse and what we now call ‘fake news’. He admitted both were disagreeable and even dangerous, but felt that no action should be taken to police them. Such action makes the Establishment into judge, jury and executioner, and honest dissent is declared a sign of bad or even criminal character.
abridged
Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction.* The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically,* to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct.
* That is, unless the speaker gives himself away in some fashion, it is impossible to prove satisfactorily that he is dishonest.
* That is, in the manner of the ancient Greek sophists, teachers of oratory who hired themselves out to ambitious and often unscrupulous members of local democratic assemblies. See Rhetoric and the Beast.
