3 ms·
I do mean suppressing ideas before they take root. I don't think getting caught is a necessary part of it. The most worrisome example of today is China, which
by msvan 11y ago
I do mean suppressing ideas before they take root. I don't think getting caught is a necessary part of it.
The most worrisome example of today is China, which has an iron grip on the spread of ideas within the country. If China deemed Sci-Hub to be an issue, they would shut it down (via DNS poisoning) and incarcerate anybody who spoke in its favor.
- throwaway2048 11y agonot to mention silencing any mention of it
- khedoros 11y agoThanks for the clarification. It's true; if any message can be silenced and any thought wiped out at will before it's even developed, then its hard for even the realization that you're being controlled to spread, let alone any plan to fight against the control.
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoCory Doctorow makes that case all the time. You don't want perfect enforcement because it provides no opportunity to evaluate when the law is wrong. You need somebody to be able to break the law, show what happens and prove that the world doesn't end in order to make the case that the consequences are actually quite alright and we shouldn't have that law anymore.
- conceit 11y agoSeparation of power ideally means that enforcement and evaluation of the law are separate instances. It doesn't work in practice. Indeed, having more laws to help enforce basic laws would seem absurd, if the practice of lawgiving was in principle wrong. But lessening law would seem absurd, if avoiding lawlessness was the idea in the first place.