Freedom of Speech Gilbert and colleagues contend with Spinoza’s hypothesis that suggests people believe first, then doubt later or retroactively. In effect, they support the proposition that information changes beliefs regardless of whether the individual wishes it to be changed. Thus, because individuals who encounter “bad” ideas act as though the ideas are true initially, this seem to provide support for restricting speech. However the authors do not automatically conclude that restricting speech would be the best remedy, rather, they offer both sides of the argument. On one hand, proponents for less freedom of speech argue that implementing prior restraints on may filter out some good ideas but it would more importantly censor the bad...The end:
.....d thus it is valid to censor this type of speech. This argument is inadequate however because it sets a dangerous precedent. Arguably, this same contention could be used with all kinds of speech that could potentially harm others. This could encompass a broad array of speech which could potentially reach an insufferable amount of censorship. Works Cited Gilbert, Daniel T., Romen W. Tafarodi , & Patrick S. Malone. “You Can’t Not Believe Everything You Read.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65.2 (1993): 221-233. Hurley, Susan. “Bypassing conscious control: Media violence, unconscious imitation, and freedom of speech.” Does Consciousness Cause Behavior? Eds. S. Pockett , W. Banks, and S. Gallagher. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.