The marketplace of ideas works, but is compromised

The argument

The marketplace of ideas works in principle, but proponents of this argument hold that it is currently compromised, and that the growth of online cancel culture and rampant collegiate de-platforming are symptomatic of how it is under threat. The mechanism they describe is exclusion at the point of entry. A marketplace of ideas only functions if unpopular arguments can actually reach it; if the speakers who hold them are removed before they can speak, the competition that is supposed to sort good arguments from bad never takes place. From author J.K. Rowling to pioneering feminist Germaine Greer, those whose views question the prevailing social narrative are excluded by society, and denied the opportunity to share their views. On this account the objection is not that these figures are criticised — criticism is what a marketplace consists of — but that they are removed from the exchange altogether, so their arguments are never tested and never answered. Two downstream effects are said to follow. The first is on the audience: this aversion to debate has fostered a generation of young adults incapable of critical analysis, because the capacity to weigh arguments is developed by encountering ones you disagree with, and an environment that removes them removes the training as well. The second is on the supply of arguments. Some claim this is a direct result of an increasingly authoritarian tendency within mainstream media — one that undermines popular opinions and stimulates a culture of fear that discourages people from disagreement, so that self-censorship does the excluding even where no formal exclusion occurs. In both cases the marketplace is compromised rather than abolished. Robbed of unpopular arguments, and fed only an established dogma, the public is increasingly misled and starved, and incapable of making an informed decision.

Premises

Counter-arguments

An intellectual environment where the privileged can share their views without ever having face criticism represents elite monopoly, not freedom of speech. Protest is an essential component of freedom of speech. The cancelling of public figures generates healthy debate and open dialogue on controversial issues. Such instances do not harm the marketplace of ideas; they are the marketplace of ideas.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The counter reclassifies the examples rather than denying them: protest is treated as itself an exercise of free expression, so public criticism of a prominent figure is participation in the marketplace rather than an obstruction of it. [Rejecting P3] The premise assumes criticism suppresses debate, where on the counter's account it generates it — controversy over a figure's views produces open argument on the issue, and an arrangement in which established voices could speak without ever meeting criticism would be an elite monopoly on speech rather than the free exchange the argument is defending.