>This sentence assumes that the state, however it is made up, or perhaps the scientific elite or even clergy, is the final arbiter of truth.
Not really; it could easily be the case that when such an issue comes to trial, you can present your evidence and arguments. The issue you point out only arises in the case where undue priority is given to the scientific elite or clergy.
But I think the sentence isn't implying what you think it is. It's only highlighting that the goal of seeking truth isn't sufficient to justify the principle of free speech. This is for two reasons: it's not clear that all speech does lead to truth (even in the long run), and it's not clear that all truths should be revealed.
The sentence only argues against people who justify free speech on the basis of truth. It does not propose that lies or discussion to find truth should be prohibited. "Free speech is good because it leads to truth/revealing the truth is a good in all contexts" does not stand up as an argument - at least according to this refutation of Mill.
"it could easily be the case that when such an issue comes to trial, you can present your evidence and arguments."
Trial? Do you mean like in a court of law?
The whole point of the First Amendment is to prevent the state from hauling you to court just for making some utterance. Moreover, you shouldn't be asked to defend your views at the mercy of judges who threaten you with a loss of your freedom if you are deemed to have the "wrong" ideas. That doesn't only threaten your own freedom, but democracy itself.
Priority, undue or not, does not matter, and it assumes that someone is the arbiter of that priority, whereas the idea of free speech claims that the final arbiter is truth itself, as it will conquer all if we just give people the freedom to find it. The maxim that comes out of this, is that the only way we can possibly find the truth, is by allowing ideas to compete freely, by giving people as much freedom of speech as possible, because if we don't, then lies will prevail.
>The whole point of the First Amendment is to prevent the state from hauling you to court just for making some utterance
And the whole point of the legislature and judiciary is to prevent passage of laws which would allow the executive branch to haul you to court for just "some utterance" - but speech is not in itself always just "an utterance".
>That doesn't only threaten your own freedom, but democracy itself.
Arguably, democracy is undermined through some uses of free speech which in the U.S. in particular cannot be legislated. the OP article has a whole section on this as it relates to porn or hate speech, and the arguments made therein.
>is that the only way we can possibly find the truth, is by allowing ideas to compete freely
This may be true of "ideas" as abstract entities, but ideas take concrete form in particular acts of speech and modes of expression - the real picture isn't a heavenly battle of ideas, it's the real effects of speech - only some of which carry an idea. Child porn or threats both carry 'ideas', or they can be imbued with the intention to carry an idea. This does not mean they should not be censored.
>as much freedom of speech as possible, because if we don't, then lies will prevail.
Is there empirical evidence confirming this in the context of the modern populace in the information age?
Not really; it could easily be the case that when such an issue comes to trial, you can present your evidence and arguments. The issue you point out only arises in the case where undue priority is given to the scientific elite or clergy.
But I think the sentence isn't implying what you think it is. It's only highlighting that the goal of seeking truth isn't sufficient to justify the principle of free speech. This is for two reasons: it's not clear that all speech does lead to truth (even in the long run), and it's not clear that all truths should be revealed.
The sentence only argues against people who justify free speech on the basis of truth. It does not propose that lies or discussion to find truth should be prohibited. "Free speech is good because it leads to truth/revealing the truth is a good in all contexts" does not stand up as an argument - at least according to this refutation of Mill.