Hey Erik,

Nice piece. I think my response to your concerns would be twofold.

First, the courtroom is adversarial and rules-based. What does that mean. “Adversarial” means (1) that both sides have something at stake (they’re not just trolls doing it for the lulz), and (2) that the jury (the audience) has to hear both sides. They don’t get to listen to one side and tune out the other.

Second, the courtroom is rules-based. What does that mean? It means there are rules of evidence that prevent the presentation of irrelevant data or arguments. I agree with you that reason is ruled by the passions, and that’s exactly why lawyers and judges have developed the rules of evidence, to prevent bias, prejudice, and emotion from interfering with our ability to evaluate evidence objectively.

In my article I suggested some reforms that might help, like bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. But at the end of the day the courtroom of ideas is something we all have a responsibility to create in our own minds, since that is the place where ideas have to compete.