[canadaduane]

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

One thought experiment that has helped me get my mind around the problem is "why is it necessary that parents shield children from some information?"

I think free speech might have a context that is invisible to us. Something like a prior, or trained neural net, in which free speech and no censorship is absolutely the right thing. And then there might be other contexts where it is wrong, and harmful.

In other words, "dangerous ideas" may be the wrong way of thinking about free speech--it might be "dangerous contexts" of our minds--such as childhood. If so, what then?

[zpeti]

There is a difference between a child and an adult. We make that distinction for a reason, and we act differently for a reason.

A great analogy is to think of an eggshell with a chick inside. The eggshell provides protection for a long time but is also restrictive. When the chick is strong enough it will break free. But if it breaks free too early it won’t be strong enough to survive in the world.

[judahmeek]

Do you have any statistical studies that show that adults are less likely to be manipulated than children?

If so, how was "manipulation" defined exactly?

[tekknik]

Do you actually need studies? Adults for the most part are more educated, children are not. Therefore it’s easier to tell a child a lie than an adult. You can use basic logic.

[canadaduane]

I like your analogy, as I appreciate thinking about it. Some thoughts:

Breaking an eggshell requires effort, and seems kind of like a "test" to me. But in most human societies, it's possible to simply let time pass and you will reach the "age of majority" (usually 18 or 19 years old). I wonder if we're doing a disservice by allowing children to cross that boundary without any "eggshell test".

[water8]

To rephrase, your argument: Why lying is ok in small doses. It’s still a morally dubious and supremely arrogant position

[robotresearcher]

Insisting on free speech means that lying is OK in arbitrary doses.

I'm strongly for free speech. But it logically entails allowing people to lie as much as they want.

[yanderekko]

>One thought experiment that has helped me get my mind around the problem is "why is it necessary that parents shield children from some information?"

I'd argue that paternalism is particularly justified in relationships that are literally paternalistic.

The issue is that the justification for my neighbor paternalistically dictating how I should live my life is much weaker a parent dictating to their child. We shouldn't deeply have to delve into why this is the case.

[canadaduane]

Philosophy is often the tool I reach for when trying to deeply understand complex issues.