Kindly Inquisitors

(Wrote many months ago, but just posting now.)

 I recently finished an interesting book by Jonathan Rauch called "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attack on Free Speech". (Although the subtitle has the word "new" in it, the book was originally published in 1993, with a second edition in 2013.) The basic gist of the argument is that, in almost all cases, the best antidote for bad ideas is not censoring the ideas, but rather ensuring that free speech is protected so that good ideas come to the fore and eventually win out in the marketplace of ideas. 

Rauch identifies five possible decision-making principles and walks through the pros and cons of each:

• The Fundamental Principle -- a person or group of people are in charge of determining what is true ("If the king decrees it, it is so")
• The Simple Egalitarian Principle -- any sincerely held belief is true ("If that's what you believe, it is true for you")
• The Radical Egalitarian Principle -- similar to the simple principle, but with special weighting for beliefs of marginalized group ("You must be right, because you're <name of marginalized group>")
  
• The Humanitarian Principle -- any belief is OK as long as it doesn't cause harm to someone else
• The Liberal Principle -- beliefs must be subject to public criticism to determine their truth
  

The bulk of the book is spent defending the final principle, the Liberal Principle, as the best option, even though this can mean that the process will be messy and feelings will get hurt along the way. Ideas that some (or many) would consider "hate speech" would be part of the mix at times. This is a necessary cost, according to Rauch, to avoid the problems inherent with adopting any of the other principles.