Censorship is a slippery slope. Truth is not empirical. Lawyers professionally manipulate the appearance of facts, and judges use opinions to determine validity. Start censoring some, and soon enough you’ll be censored as well. There’s a reason why freedom of speech is part of the first right in the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t foresight, it was experience.
yes it is and where it cannot be proven with 100% certainty, the scientific principles applied to truth will at least get you as damn close to it as possible.
This statement reads like you want the right to replace reality with your own and say whatever you want without consequences.
I think you misunderstand the point. No one is asking for legislation against stating the sky isn’t blue. When a general idea, such as “hate speech” is made illegal, the definition can be manipulated by those in power to do so. That’s exactly how past governments control the narrative of the citizens to their liking. All they need is our permission to tell us what is, and is not, acceptable to say.
Welcome to participating in society, where you are expected to work alongside your neighbour, not against them.
our government is supposed to be there to define these lines, in conjuction with the will of the people AND the limits of the courts.
Theres’ valid argument about some parties abuse. But thats where a robust parliament with multiple different houses can help.
But at the end of the day, if you let hate speech fall under the pervue of freedom of speech and take an absolutist approach to freedom of speech, you will inevitably, lose tolerance as the intolerant will eliminate the tolerant. We have seen this enough times to know that free speech absolutism is a joke, and why it’s not the rule of most countries.
Let’s say legislation is passed to allow censorship of language. What if that power is transferred to a leader who chooses to use it for their own interests? Now that not only infringes on freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Governmental control of the press is how you make a dictator.
Instead of telling about what the government shouldn’t do, why don’t you tell us about what the government should do to deal with misinformation and stochastic terrorism?
I simply do not believe the government should restrict or regulate speech. Neither did the founders. They understood the power that puts in the government’s hands, and no leader should be trusted with that much control.
I’m being as consistent in my opinion as one can be. I don’t believe the government should do anything about a citizen saying hateful or offensive things. What is illegal is unlawful action.
When it comes to broadcasting, it is illegal to spread misinformation (a fact proven to be false) or disinformation (a fact proven to be false with intent to mislead). It can also be prosecuted through a defamation lawsuit as libel or slander.
Listen, I’m not a fan of freedom of speech because I want to hide behind it while spitting venom. I agree that there’s too much hate in the world, and the internet brings it to your front door. I’m simply saying that giving the government the power to determine what is, and is not acceptable to say has empowered dictatorship after dictatorship throughout history. America won’t be any different. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I’m simply saying that giving the government the power to determine what is, and is not acceptable to say has empowered dictatorship after dictatorship throughout history.
And I’m saying if government isn’t going to have the power to regulate speech then it will be hijacked by malicious actors.
Did I say ‘will be’? I meant to say ‘has been’.
Pick your poison. Do you want government to have that power, a government whose representatives you can vote for, or do you want to give that power to the billionaires and corporations?
I think you’re conflating speech and press. As I said in my previous comment, press is already regulated and legally bound to report true information. Freedom of speech is what’s allowing you to share your opinion on this topic, no matter how wrong it may be.
Censorship is a slippery slope. Truth is not empirical. Lawyers professionally manipulate the appearance of facts, and judges use opinions to determine validity. Start censoring some, and soon enough you’ll be censored as well. There’s a reason why freedom of speech is part of the first right in the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t foresight, it was experience.
yes it is and where it cannot be proven with 100% certainty, the scientific principles applied to truth will at least get you as damn close to it as possible.
This statement reads like you want the right to replace reality with your own and say whatever you want without consequences.
That’s not reality and you need to grow up
I think you misunderstand the point. No one is asking for legislation against stating the sky isn’t blue. When a general idea, such as “hate speech” is made illegal, the definition can be manipulated by those in power to do so. That’s exactly how past governments control the narrative of the citizens to their liking. All they need is our permission to tell us what is, and is not, acceptable to say.
Welcome to participating in society, where you are expected to work alongside your neighbour, not against them.
our government is supposed to be there to define these lines, in conjuction with the will of the people AND the limits of the courts.
Theres’ valid argument about some parties abuse. But thats where a robust parliament with multiple different houses can help.
But at the end of the day, if you let hate speech fall under the pervue of freedom of speech and take an absolutist approach to freedom of speech, you will inevitably, lose tolerance as the intolerant will eliminate the tolerant. We have seen this enough times to know that free speech absolutism is a joke, and why it’s not the rule of most countries.
Thanks for the most lukewarm takes. Now say something about what’s happening in the real world.
Let’s say legislation is passed to allow censorship of language. What if that power is transferred to a leader who chooses to use it for their own interests? Now that not only infringes on freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Governmental control of the press is how you make a dictator.
Instead of telling about what the government shouldn’t do, why don’t you tell us about what the government should do to deal with misinformation and stochastic terrorism?
I simply do not believe the government should restrict or regulate speech. Neither did the founders. They understood the power that puts in the government’s hands, and no leader should be trusted with that much control.
And my question is what should the government do to stop the inevitable spread of misinformation, hatred, and stochastic terrorism.
Stop being so wishy-washy and responding in meaningless idealistic bullshit.
I’m being as consistent in my opinion as one can be. I don’t believe the government should do anything about a citizen saying hateful or offensive things. What is illegal is unlawful action.
When it comes to broadcasting, it is illegal to spread misinformation (a fact proven to be false) or disinformation (a fact proven to be false with intent to mislead). It can also be prosecuted through a defamation lawsuit as libel or slander.
Listen, I’m not a fan of freedom of speech because I want to hide behind it while spitting venom. I agree that there’s too much hate in the world, and the internet brings it to your front door. I’m simply saying that giving the government the power to determine what is, and is not acceptable to say has empowered dictatorship after dictatorship throughout history. America won’t be any different. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And I’m saying if government isn’t going to have the power to regulate speech then it will be hijacked by malicious actors.
Did I say ‘will be’? I meant to say ‘has been’.
Pick your poison. Do you want government to have that power, a government whose representatives you can vote for, or do you want to give that power to the billionaires and corporations?
I think you’re conflating speech and press. As I said in my previous comment, press is already regulated and legally bound to report true information. Freedom of speech is what’s allowing you to share your opinion on this topic, no matter how wrong it may be.