3 ms·
> And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't
by jpttsn 9y ago
> And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't really anything particularly new.
So the slippery slope people were right after all.
- emn13 9y agoYeah. You clearly intend for this newfangled freedom of speech thing to protect critical commentary, avoid repression and promote the exchange of valuable ideas; and all of the sudden people apply it in all kinds of nonsensical counterproductive ways. Slippery slope and all... Unless of course you really think that protecting the rich & powerful's ability to mislead and trick others is really a societal benefit.
- Retra 9y agoFreedom of speech isn't a blanket "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" rule. It is the freedom to communicate with interested parties about the matters of your choosing. It is not supposed to be a freedom to perform mass campaigns of dishonesty in economic or political domains.
- jpttsn 9y agoI don't think this is a true dichotomy. 1) "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" I agree, that would be silly; the perpetrator could choose to call any action speech. 2) campaigns of dishonesty Could these campaigns be carried out by actions that fall under a commonly before hand agreed on definition of speech?
- Retra 9y agoSure they could, but it's not the definition of speech that needs to be fixed, it's the definition of "dishonesty campaign." And there, the problem is not about speech, but identity-protection for the religious. One person's lies are "protected tradition" while another person's lies are "dangerous fake news."