3 ms·
It won't be necessary to ban ambiguity directly - the effect will be accomplished by harshly policing any problematic potential hidden meaning as "subversive" o
by dTal 9y ago
It won't be necessary to ban ambiguity directly - the effect will be accomplished by harshly policing any problematic potential hidden meaning as "subversive" or "hate speech". It will then be wiser to avoid such constructions.
Of course it raises the question of what constitutes forbidden speech. To answer that I would look towards the opinions you are already frightened to voice publicly.
- ue_ 9y agoIsn't hate speech more of a different matter? I can't really see how it relates except under the umbrella of restricting speech, and I'd argue that there are various good reasons for restricting some speech, for example assault and shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
- schoen 9y agoI'd like to encourage people who mention the "shouting 'fire'" thing to have a look at Ken White's comments on this: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... (brief excerpt from a much longer piece: "Holmes' famous quote comes in the context of a series of early 1919 Supreme Court decisions in which he endorsed government censorship of wartime dissent — dissent that is now clearly protected by subsequent First Amendment authority. The three cases in question arose from socialist criticism of conscription during World War One. The criticism at issue, to modern tastes, was a clearly protected and rather mild expression of opinion.")