The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'
Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia.
Little distinguishes democracy in America more sharply from Europe than the primacy—and permissiveness—of our commitment to free speech. Yet ongoing controversies at American universities suggest that free speech is becoming a partisan issue. While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others. Denying hateful or historically “privileged” voices a platform is thus necessary to make equality effective, so that the marginalized and vulnerable can finally speak up—and be heard.
The reason that appeals to the First Amendment cannot decide these campus controversies is because there is a more fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech at stake. The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom.
When it comes to private universities, businesses, or social media, the would-be censors are our fellow-citizens, not the state. Private entities like Facebook or Twitter, not to mention Yale or Middlebury, have broad rights to regulate and exclude the speech of their members. Likewise, online mobs are made up of outraged individuals exercising their own right to speak freely. To invoke the First Amendment in such cases is not a knock-down argument, itÂ’s a non sequitur.
1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
in Topics
Posted
It might be that low, assuming you don't trust the Watchtower's own reports. But if you're right, it means 98% of us were not obedient when we were asked to speculate in 1968 through 1973. This might give us a better picture of why the WTS brought the subject of 1975 up again, and it might answer @Anna's question about the lesson to be learned.
Here's what I think it is:
1. The WTS has been highlighting the idea of obedience and following any and all instructions even if asked to follow a course that does not seem reasonable or rational. This idea, spelled out in 2013 below, has been repeated again this year.
*** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today ***
2. But someone will point out that when asked to follow instructions in the past, such as when we were told to speculate in the late 1960's and early 1970's, many people ended up doing things that were considered wonderful at the time (like selling your home) but irrational upon looking back on that time.
3. To answer this objection, the WTS knew it had to address the 1975 issues again, but remind us that this was the fault of individuals speculating on their own, and not the fault of the WTS.
So I'm thinking that some brothers put the 1975 skit together specifically as a way to clear up that particular objection about the past, so that we are better prepared to be obedient without objections in the future. We don't want to be overly concerned with reasonableness. If we feel always tied to a reasonable, practical, sound or strategic instructions, we will need to adjust our thinking because these could be a hindrance to following instructions. Some would say this is similar preparation given to the soldiers in the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" by Alfred Tennyson:
I'm not saying this is all bad advice. Egos get in the way of progress when one always relies on the absolute best solution. There is paralysis through analysis. Perfect becomes the enemy of good. People who are not humble need to leave well enough alone. But in trying to prepare people for the likely needs during such a time, which is based on speculation anyway, it's probably best to start with reasonable suggestions rather than telling everyone to prepare to follow advice that may sound unreasonable. If you are gong to speculate on what the advice could look like, then speculate on some specific scenarios so people know what you are thinking. Otherwise we are asking for a different type of follower than the ones that Jesus and the apostles asked for.