We are all aware of the view that lockdown scepticism is not a position to be given full consideration, given air time, and so on. Here are a couple of resources from the past:
1. George Orwell, The Freedom of the Press
This is a preface to Animal Farm which was not used when the book was published. It is available here:
A lot of it is specific to British attitudes to the Soviet Union, but the theme that one should not give oxygen to deviant views is of relevance today. For example:
"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
2. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, chapter 2
The text is here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm
Mill argued for freedom of expression of unorthodox opinions largely on the basis of its benefits. If the unorthodox opinion is correct, it is a good thing that it be given exposure so that the orthodox error can be discarded. If the orthodox opinion is correct, it will gain in solidity and will come to be understood better if it has to be defended against the unorthodox in open argument. And if the truth is a mixture of the current orthodox and unorthodox opinions, we will only move toward the truth if both are in play.
So what, say the anti-sceptics? No-one is saying that expressions of lockdown scepticism should be illegal (although some want expressions of vaccine scepticism to be illegal). But free speech does not give you any right to airtime or a place on social media.
But there's the rub. The beneficial consequences of a clash of opinions that Mill identified will only come about if people actually have the sceptical view readily available to them. Keeping sceptical views off the airwaves or off social media means that the benefit of having them around is lost. And there is a real benefit to be lost, even if sceptical opinions are mistaken.
Very true, Richard, but most people would say freedom of expression has limits.
The classic recent case is Muslim fundamentalism: would you be happy that ISIS recruiting videos are freely promoted and distributed?
The line that was accepted until recently was material which 'incites or promotes violence' should not be allowed (although it was always noticeable that material which justifies violence from the existing powers-that-be was considered acceptable - such as that defending the 'war on terror').
The change with covid appears to be that the definition has been extended to material 'which could result in loss of life' as a result of promotion of 'non-conforming' behaviours. This puts us on a very sticky wicket, as whereas it is fairly easy to determine whether a statement constitutes 'incitement to violence', deciding whether something might adversely impact life is almost impossible (and so we have the stupid 'if it contradicts latest pronouncements from the WHO then it must be banned' position).
It has to be said that it is then only another step from there to banning anything which is viewed as 'contrary to the common good' i.e. the Chinese Communist party position. I don't think we are there yet but certainly there is a risk.
But the fundamental problem is that identified by Orwell, namely that the main channels of communication are in the hands of a few and they can arbitrarily decide what gets published and what doesn't. And this is an even bigger problem today with what are effectively monopoly platforms owned by a few tech companies in silicon valley.
