Who said marketplace of ideas

Asserting that no alone knows the truth, or that no one idea alone embodies either the truth or its antithesis, or that truth left untested will slip into dogma, Mill claims that the free competition of ideas is the best way to separate falsehoods from fact. The marketplace of ideas refers to the belief that the test of the truth or acceptance of ideas depends on their competition with one another and not on the opinion of a censor, whether one provided by the government or by some other authority.

This concept draws on an analogy to the economic marketplace, where, it is claimed, through economic competition superior products sell better than others. Thus, the economic marketplace uses competition to determine winners and losers, whereas the marketplace of ideas uses competition to judge truth and acceptability.

This theory of speech therefore condemns censorship and encourages the free flow of ideas as a way of viewing the First Amendment. In Chapter 2, Mill argues against censorship and in favor of the free flow of ideas. Asserting that no one alone knows the truth, or that no one idea alone embodies either the truth or its antithesis, or that truth left untested will slip into dogma, Mill claims that the free competition of ideas is the best way to separate falsehoods from fact. United States Since this first appeal to the marketplace of ideas as a theory of free expression, it has been invoked hundreds if not thousands of times by the Supreme Court and federal judges to oppose censorship and to encourage freedom of thought and expression.

The Court invoked the phrase in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union to strike down a religious display of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse, in Randall v. Sorrell to invalidate expenditure limits for candidates for political office, and in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union to bar enforcement of the Communications Decency Act in censoring the content of material distributed on the Internet and the Web.

More recently, the Court invoked the phrase several times in Matal v. In each case the argument for compelled speech is circular. If the law compels speech, then that speech is not the expression of an individual, and since the speech is not expressive it is not compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

In an Orwellian twist, the position of the government is that while compelled speech is against the law, any speech they compel is not really speech. One is reminded of H. Beneath both these arguments for compelled speech is the supposition that we have reached the truth and that the marketplace should be shut down - or at least severely controlled.

This is evident in how partisans frame the debate for each of the cases. Where these partisan arguments fail is in making the First Amendment the enemy of social goods.

It is true that solidarity and tolerance are virtues that liberal societies should cherish, but pitting them against the First Amendment only undermines the framework that makes them possible. Rather than appeal to liberal principles, the opponents of free speech in Janus and Masterpiece Cakeshop make their arguments by appealing to conceptions of the good and the true that they claim must trump all other concerns.

This is not liberalism. Progressives may be right in those arguments about what is good and true, but they fail to see that their vision of the good is not negated by also adhering to the principles of the First Amendment. Are we are a nation that prizes non-discrimination and tolerance, or one that rigorously protects free speech? Are we a nation that values solidarity, or one that protects the free association of everyone? This is a BETA experience. Now, deep fakes , believable videos of people doing and saying things they never said or did, are emerging as even more powerful tools for misleading people and undermining truth.

These changes are having a profound influence on truth and any semblance of a marketplace in which people encounter and evaluate ideas. Twenty first century marketplaces have become more like specialty shops, which trade in only a few, pre-approved ideas within their community.

They are generally not open to new ideas. So, what would spruce up this century celebration? The Supreme Court has taken this and other sentiments about truth and the rationality of people to mean the marketplace protects the discovery of an absolute truth, which is the same for all. Justices have also used the theory to explain that people are rational and they should be able to make sense of what is true and false.

In the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan defamation case, the Court used marketplace thinking to explain why attacks on public officials should generally be protected. We still need free expression. And we still need a powerful metaphor like the marketplace to rationalize and support it.

Maybe all the marketplace needs on this th anniversary is a bit of a makeover. We could also shift the focus of the marketplace approach to focusing on safeguarding the flow of information.