On October 8, the LSU Law Journal for Social Justice & Policy will be hosting a symposium on “Conspiracy Theories, Disinformation, and Civil Rights.” The symposium will take place via Zoom, and promises to be an interesting affair.
I was selected as one of the participants for the symposium. Here is the abstract for the paper that I am contributing:
One of the most frustrating aspects of conspiracy theories is that they are founded on error. Those not taken in by the theories often seek to combat them by proving these inaccuracies to believers. These efforts at education are not just limited to private entities; governments also respond to conspiracy theories in this manner. However, there are serious reasons to be skeptical of such government responses to conspiracy theories. If these responses are too strong, they can constitute impermissible censorship. Even responses that fall short of violating the Constitution can be problematic.
In this essay, I discuss the pitfalls of using the government speech power to respond to conspiracy theories. I identify three such pitfalls. First, given the profusion of conspiracy theories, it is difficult to know when the government should speak in an attempt to correct errors and when it should stay silent for fear of lending attention and legitimacy to conspiracy theories. Second, as a matter of epistemology and of democratic self-governance, the government should not be allowed the final word on what is true. Finally, the government speech power must be used with humility, both because there is a chance—however slight—that the government might be wrong, and because there is a risk that those in power will be tempted to use their power to target their ideological enemies.
Nonetheless concluding that governments must sometimes respond to conspiracy theories using the government speech power, I then weigh the relative merits of the strong response, in which the government itself actively combats conspiracy theories, and the weak response, in which the government empowers others to respond to conspiracy theories of their own accord. I conclude that the weak response is preferable, both because it is less likely to lend itself to government abuse, and because it is the more effective of the two approaches.
I have completed a full draft of the paper, which is available on SSRN. I will also be presenting the paper at the symposium. Unfortunately, I am starting a new job and won’t be able to take the time to do a live presentation. However, I have pre-recorded a video in which I discuss my presentation, which the editors have agreed to play during the event. Here is the video:
I am very grateful to the LJSJP editors for allowing me to participate in their symposium (and for accommodating the unusual manner in which I am participating). They have not yet given me a date by which I must submit the final draft of my paper, but I intend to continue making edits and improvements to it. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions, please share them with me!
Chauvinisms 
Good post, Noah! I enjoy following along and hearing your thoughts. I’m sure it’s in the essay, but I’m curious as to why you think the government should not be allowed to have the final word on what is true? Who do you think should (the individual?) and why?
I think it would be OK for the government to have the final word in the event that an oversight committee or team of knowledgeable folks have met with government officials prior to their informed decision, especially in regards to matters of infectious disease.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Ashley!
As I mention, I have two objections to governments getting the final word on what is true–one epistemic, and one political.
First, though, I should clarify. I recognize that governments are often definitive or at least authoritative sources of information, and I don’t have any objection to that as regards most things a government chooses to speak about. Additionally, there are circumstances under which we expect governments to say what is and is not true. That’s exactly what governments regulating/punishing fraud, false advertising, and perjury must do, for instance. That, too, I think is often fine.
Anyway, into my objections. I worry about governments having the final say about what is true as a matter of epistemology because I don’t think *anyone* should have a final say. Knowledge is developed through iterative and social processes. We marshal evidence we believe supports our arguments (or disproves our null hypotheses, or however we want to put it) and try and convince others that we are correct. We also stay open to the possibility that we are wrong, and remain willing to be convinced of others’ arguments. Those processes break down if someone or some entity gets the final word on what is and isn’t true–that stops the processes by which knowledge is created in their tracks.
Of course, that’s only a good justification for disallowing a final say on issues that are broadly contested. Many things aren’t: When we say something like “the Earth orbits the Sun” or “slavery is bad” we don’t seriously expect to be contested; reasonable people don’t debate obvious physical or moral truths. Even for things about which there can be no reasonable disagreement, however, I’m hesitant to allow anyone to be able to shut off debate. John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” that one of the major reasons to support freedom of expression, even when we *know* that we are right, is that otherwise our ideas become “dead dogmas”–views we hold but are unable to fully justify or explain. The fear is that if ideas become incontestable, then people will hold them for the same reasons they hold a prejudice or a superstition.
(Jonathan Rauch explained a lot of this much more artfully in his book “Kindly Inquisitors,” which I highly recommend.)
My political objection the the government getting the final say on what is and isn’t true is (I think) a little more straightforward. In a democracy (or a republic) the people are sovereign. They effect their sovereignty by convincing a majority of their fellow citizens that they have the best beliefs. I worry about the consequences for the sovereign power of the majority if governments have the final say on what is true. Too much government speech on contested issues could drown out the voices of ordinary people, and deprive us of our duty and privilege of governing ourselves.
Both of my objections to governments having the final say on what is and isn’t true are most salient when we are talking about political truth or in other situations where there are no obvious “right” answers. As for responses to infectious diseases, I want to reiterate that I am not saying that the government can’t or shouldn’t be a source of authoritative or trusted information. But history is replete with examples of science ossifying because scientists’ work contradicted accepted government truth. Governments should be (and usually are) sources of good information to which we should all pay attention–but their pronouncements should never be beyond questioning.
At any rate, thank you for your question! As you intuited, there’s a lot of nuance in the longer essay that couldn’t make it into the abstract. But I’m going to think about ways I can re-word the abstract to make a little clearer the argument I’m making.
LikeLike