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.
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.
Define press. Does a podcast or YouTube channel or Instagram/Facebook page qualify as press?
Edit: Should Marjorie be allowed to talk about Jewish Space Lasers without any response from the government?
Not unless it’s accredited.
It’s important to be mindful of where you get your information.