Abstract
Free speech fallacies are errors of meta-argument. One commits a free speech fallacy when one argues that since there are apparent restrictions on one’s rights of free expression, procedural rules of critical exchange have been broken, and consequently, one’s preferred view is dialectically better off than it may otherwise seem. Free speech fallacies are meta-argumentative, since they occur at the level of assessing the dialectical situation in terms of norms of argument and in terms of meta-evidential principles of interpreting how and why people follow (or fail to follow) argumentative rules. Our plan here is to begin with a brief explanation of meta-argument and meta-argumentative fallacy. We will then turn to the variety of forms of the free speech fallacy, which we will explain as meta-argumentatively erroneous.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a different perspective on the purpose of arguments see Aikin and Casey (2022a)
For more on the concept of a meta-argumentative fallacy, see Aikin and Casey (forthcoming).
See Aikin and Casey (2022b) for a full account of the straw man fallacy as a meta-argumentative error.
See Aikin and Casey (2022c) for an account of the bothsiderist fallacy as a meta-argumentative error.
A version of this argument is described in Cohen (2001)
See Godden (2014) for an evaluation of this form of error as an equivocation on ‘entitlements’ to opinion.
See Aikin and Casey (2019) for complete analyses of the Palin and West cases, emphasizing the fact that the speakers in these cases take the discomfort they feel with being the targets of criticism to be the point of the criticism.
See Neil Levy’s (2019) for the case for no-platforming on the basis of the meta-evidential considerations for platforming—namely, that doing so generates higher-order evidence for claims that are indefensible on the first order. (Aikin and Casey 2022a, b, c) argue that gaining a place at the dialectical table is a key feature of bothsiderist arguing, since the appearance of there being a debate is sufficient for some to moderate their view.
References
Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. 2019. Free Speech. In Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy, ed. Robert Arp, Steven Barbone, and Michael Bruce. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.
Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. 2022a. Bothsiderism. Argumentation 36: 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09563-1.
Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. 2022b. Straw Man Arguments: A Study in Fallacy Theory. London: Bloomsbury.
Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. 2022c. Argumentation and the Problem of Agreement. Synthese 200(2): 134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03680-4.
Aikin, Scott, and Robert Talisse. 2011. Argument in Mixed Company. Think. 10: 31–43.
Aikin, Scott, and Robert Talisse. 2019. Why We Argue (And How We Should). New York: Routledge.
Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. Forthcoming. Fallacies of Meta-Argumentation Philosophy & Rhetoric.
Bizer, George, Sirel Kozak, and Leigh Ann Holderman. 2009. The Persuasiveness of the Straw Man Technique. Social Influence. 4(3): 216–230.
Boudry, Maarten, Fabio Paglieri, and Massimo Pigliucci. 2015. The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life. Argumentation 29(4): 431–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.
Casey, John. 2022. Beliefs, Commitments, and Ad Baculum Arguments. Languages 7(2): 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020107.
Cohen, D. 2001. Evaluating Arguments and Making Meta-Arguments. Informal Logic. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i2.2238.
de Saussure, Louis. 2018. The Straw Man Fallacy as a Prestige-Gaining Device. In Argumentation and Language Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, 1st ed., ed. Steve Oswald, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme. Jacquin, 171–90. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4.
Finocchiaro, M. 1981. Fallacies and the Evaluation of Reasoning. American Philosophical Quarterly 18: 13–22.
Finocchiaro, M. 2013. Meta-Argumentation: An Approach to Logic and Argumentation Theory. London: College Publications.
Godden, David. 2014. Teaching Rational Entitlement and Responsibility. Informal Logic 34: 124–151.
Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hansen, Hans V., and Robert C. Pinto, eds. 1995. Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hansen, Hans V. 2002. The Straw Thing of Fallacy Theory: The Standard Definition of ‘Fallacy.’ Argumentation 16(2): 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015509401631.
Horowitz, David. 2007. Indoctrination U: The Left’s War against Academic Freedom. New York: Encounter Books.
Johnson, Victoria. 2016. Kanye West Responds to The Life of Pablo Critics on Twitter. TheBoomBox.Com. http://Theboombox.Com/Kanye-West-Responds-to-the-Life-of-Pablo-Critics-on-Twitter. Accessed 12 Feb 2016
Levy, Neil. 2019. No-Platforming and Higher-Order Evidence, or Anti-Anti-No-Platforming. Journal of the American Philosophical Association 5(4): 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2019.29.
Massey, Gerald J. 1995. The Fallacy Behind Fallacies. In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 159–171. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Mill, J S. 1978. On Liberty. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Nichols, James. 2016. New Anti-Gay Sermon from Duck Dynasty Star Leaks. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/22/phil-robertson-anti-gay-easter-sermon_n_5372678.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2016
Palin, Bristol. 2013. Leave Phil Robertson Alone!. Bristol Palin: Life, Family, Alaska (blog). https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2013/12/leave-phil-robertson-alone/. Accessed 20 Dec 2013
Powers, Kirsten. 2015. The Silencing: How the Left Is Killing Free Speech. Washington: Regnery Publishing.
Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zuffrey, and Steve Oswald. 2022. The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters. Argumentation 35: 361–388.
Shapiro, Ben. 2013. Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America. New York: Threshold Editions.
Shapiro, Ben. 2021. The Authoritarian Moment How the Left Weaponized America’s Institutions against Dissent. New York: HarperCollins.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1995. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies. In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 130–44. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Arguments from IGNORANCE. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1998. Ad hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, Douglas. 2000. Scare tactics: arguments that appeal to fear and threats. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Walton, Douglas. 2013. Methods of Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Aikin, S.F., Casey, J. Free Speech Fallacies as Meta-Argumentative Errors. Argumentation 37, 295–305 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09601-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09601-0