Difference between revisions of "Marketplace of ideas"
(improved) |
(improved again) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
The '''marketplace of ideas''' is the theory that, in a [[free market]] of ideas, bad ideas will be subordinated to good ideas in the long run, as good ideas will win more adherents in the absence of governmental pressure to adopt one idea. | The '''marketplace of ideas''' is the theory that, in a [[free market]] of ideas, bad ideas will be subordinated to good ideas in the long run, as good ideas will win more adherents in the absence of governmental pressure to adopt one idea. | ||
| − | This theory has become an underpinning of American [[free speech]] law, and the interpretation of the clause of the [[First Amendment]]: as Justice Holmes wrote in ''Abrams v. United States'', mere disagreement with speech is never enough to condemn it: political majorities should be content to put their faith in the marketplace of ideas, that their ideas will win out in the end, and if they don't, that they didn't deserve to in the first place. Thus, the marketplace of ideas confronts "bad speech" by offering the remedy of "good speech" and competition to cure it. | + | This theory has become an underpinning of American [[free speech]] law, and the interpretation of the clause of the [[First Amendment]]: as Justice Holmes wrote in ''Abrams v. United States'', mere disagreement with speech is never enough to condemn it: political majorities should be content to put their faith in the marketplace of ideas, that their ideas will win out in the end, and if they don't, that they didn't deserve to in the first place. Thus, the marketplace of ideas confronts "bad speech" by offering the remedy of "good speech" and competition to cure it.<ref>250 U.S. 616.</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | Of course, the marketplace cannot be expected to cure all bad speech. Where speech constitutes an incitement to a breach of the peace, for example, the government should feel free to step in.<ref>Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444.</ref> | ||
[[Dictatorship|Dictatorships]] tend to suppress free speech, as they fear that their ideas ''will not'' stand up in the marketplace of ideas, and can only survive with an administrative crutch. | [[Dictatorship|Dictatorships]] tend to suppress free speech, as they fear that their ideas ''will not'' stand up in the marketplace of ideas, and can only survive with an administrative crutch. | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
[[category:law]] | [[category:law]] | ||
[[category:politics] | [[category:politics] | ||
Revision as of 21:53, March 5, 2008
The marketplace of ideas is the theory that, in a free market of ideas, bad ideas will be subordinated to good ideas in the long run, as good ideas will win more adherents in the absence of governmental pressure to adopt one idea.
This theory has become an underpinning of American free speech law, and the interpretation of the clause of the First Amendment: as Justice Holmes wrote in Abrams v. United States, mere disagreement with speech is never enough to condemn it: political majorities should be content to put their faith in the marketplace of ideas, that their ideas will win out in the end, and if they don't, that they didn't deserve to in the first place. Thus, the marketplace of ideas confronts "bad speech" by offering the remedy of "good speech" and competition to cure it.[1]
Of course, the marketplace cannot be expected to cure all bad speech. Where speech constitutes an incitement to a breach of the peace, for example, the government should feel free to step in.[2]
Dictatorships tend to suppress free speech, as they fear that their ideas will not stand up in the marketplace of ideas, and can only survive with an administrative crutch.
References
[[category:politics]