[lliamander]

> I only reference the article for its quote from Mill, in which truth-value is a concern in a situation Mill happened to think warranted the suppression of falsehoods.

Mill's main reason for conceding an exception to the freedom of speech wasn't the falsehood of the speech, but the threat of mob action. I stand by my statement: Mill would be more concerned about cancel culture rather than fake news. Of course, the latter can feed into the former, but again the question comes down to whether we are looking at genuine incitement.

> And while Ben cites the usual opinions on the subject, I don't think he's made a sufficient effort to grapple with the different media/discourse environment we live in today. That doesn't mean he must necessarily come to a different conclusion, but it's a mistake not to give it more consideration.

I disagree? That's a difficult criticism to respond to given it's vagueness: like trying to put fog in a box. You could criticize Ben for his lack of originality, but I think there is value in reiterating a truth, even an obvious truth, in a clear and persuasive manner.

As for his thoughtfulness, are you perhaps just nonplussed that he sounds more certain of his convictions than you think he should be? Outside specific criticisms of his arguments, I'd have to say his position seems well thought out. I'd say that even if I thought he was wrong.

[dieterrams2]

> Mill's main reason for conceding an exception to the freedom of speech wasn't the falsehood of the speech,

I didn’t say it was his main concern?

Mill’s reasoning ultimately rests on what principles he believes would result in the best outcome, from a utilitarian perspective. The point I’m making is that he wasn’t some free speech absolutist, but that an assessment of harm/utility undergirds his thinking, and that the different media environment would be something Mill would have to grapple with. And it could lead to an exception.

> I disagree? That's a difficult criticism to respond to given it's vagueness: like trying to put fog in a box. You could criticize Ben for his lack of originality, but I think there is value in reiterating a truth, even an obvious truth, in a clear and persuasive manner.

> As for his thoughtfulness, are you perhaps just nonplussed that he sounds more certain of his convictions than you think he should be? Outside specific criticisms of his arguments, I'd have to say his position seems well thought out. I'd say that even if I thought he was wrong.

You seem more concerned with defending Ben than thinking through what needs to be considered in this issue. Which is fine, I guess, but whether Ben has done an admirable job or not isn’t really what I care about.

[lliamander]

> Mill’s reasoning ultimately rests on what principles he believes would result in the best outcome, from a utilitarian perspective. The point I’m making is that he wasn’t some free speech absolutist, but that an assessment of harm/utility undergirds his thinking, and that the different media environment would be something Mill would have to grapple with. And it could lead to an exception.

I suppose that's possible, but outside a specific argument as why Mill should change his mind, I'm hard pressed to think he would.

You're right that he wasn't an absolutist, but in my experience a sufficiently advanced utilitarian philosophy is virtually indistinguishable from a deontological one. This stems from the obvious limitations in human ability to perform the ethical calculations required by utilitarianism.

> You seem more concerned with defending Ben than thinking through what needs to be considered in this issue.

No, I'm trying to elicit a concrete criticism or argument that I can engage with. I happen to agree with Ben's position: so don't just tell me I'm not thinking about the issues, tell me why I'm wrong.