In the modern discourse space, laws ensuring freedom of expression create a highly ambiguous atmosphere.

The Mirage of Free Expression: Bias in Contemporary Criticism

In the modern discourse space, laws ensuring freedom of expression create a highly ambiguous atmosphere. On one hand, they allow critics to boldly voice their views and seek validation for their own opinions; on the other, they foster a tendency to rely on subjective prejudices rather than deep analysis. This approach often turns criticism into a tool for self-assertion, where demonstrating the ability to pinpoint “weak spots” in works becomes more important than an objective examination of the facts.

It is particularly noticeable that the system protecting the right to free expression has pushed many to search for easy ways to profit from controversial assertions. Sometimes, a critic focuses not on thorough analysis but on efforts to confirm preexisting views, thereby amplifying the effect of “cherry-picking” information to fit specific premises. As a result, a dynamic yet somewhat biased culture of evaluation arises, where the pursuit of objectivity gives way to demonstrative debate and a struggle for recognition.

Such processes prompt reflection on the price of free speech, which, despite its energy and allure, sometimes leads to a loss of objectivity. Nevertheless, remaining an important aspect of cultural exchange, criticism under modern rules continues to evolve, reminding us that true mastery requires not only freedom but also a sincere commitment to accurate analysis.

Why is it often easier to criticize others when laws favor critics, and how does this affect the objectivity of judgments?

Laws that benefit critics create an atmosphere in which criticism is seen not so much as an objective analysis as an opportunity to reaffirm already established opinions or even a means to profit from “controversial” conclusions. When the system protects the right to express critical judgments freely, it often encourages individual critics to focus on exposing the shortcomings in works or others’ views, making it easier for them to assert themselves even at the expense of objectivity. This approach can lead to evaluative judgments that rely more on personal biases than on thorough and well-rounded analysis of the facts.

For example, one source notes:
"The task of the critic is defined for him with perfect clarity; and hardly any great effort is required to decide whether the critic’s work meets these requirements; moreover, what kind of criticism is useful and what kind is fruitless is determined. It would seem that criticism is the most suitable field for dedicated, focused work. It would seem that, since the critic wants to justify his existence, he must strive to curb his own biases and personal inclinations—who is free of these?—and if possible, align his individual impulses with those of others in the general pursuit of forming a true judgment about works. But when it turns out that in practice everything is usually the opposite, a suspicion arises that the critic makes his living more easily the more fiercely and uncompromisingly he argues with other critics; or that his livelihood is sustained by his ability to impose his own petty whims on everyone, which become a sort of garnish to the opinions that everyone already clings to and that—out of vanity or laziness—no one intends to change."
(source: link txt)

This demonstrates that when critics operate within a legal framework that protects their right to free expression, they may more readily convey their evaluations—even if deep analysis is not strictly necessary. Such freedom often leads to a situation in which the search for confirmation of one’s own views takes precedence over an objective examination of the facts. This tendency is further reinforced if, as noted, people are inclined to “manipulate” information so that it fits preexisting assumptions and working hypotheses:
"Another interesting fact: 'Despite striving for objectivity, when gathering information, people tend to manipulate it in such a way that it confirms their opinions or "working hypotheses" about the given object.'"
(source: link txt)

Thus, laws oriented in favor of critics may encourage a culture where criticism becomes a tool for self-assertion and the validation of personal views. This, in turn, affects the objectivity of judgments, leading critics to focus more on their subjective impressions and evaluations rather than on a comprehensive and impartial analysis.