4 ms·

> It's sort of disconcerting to admit this but recent events have me reevaluating the utility of unvarnished free speech as a societal value. Very disconcertin

by davemp 9y ago

> It's sort of disconcerting to admit this but recent events have me reevaluating the utility of unvarnished free speech as a societal value. Very disconcerting that you and so many other people feel this way. Free speech and competition of ideas is an essential part of our society. To deny free speech is to oppress. > no recourse to the psychological and structural damage they do to our society through their dishonesty Open, civil, and logical debate of ideas is your recourse. If your ideas cannot win over the majority, maybe you (and possibly that society) deserve to lose. Civil rights, gay marrage, and abortion have all come about because of free speech. Thinking anything else is folly.

jpfed 9y ago
>Free speech and competition of ideas is an essential part of our society. That is the familiar way. But when lies travel faster than corrections, and bots can automate the Gish gallop, it's hard to imagine truth actually winning.
- davemp 9y ago
  All the misinformation and crud out there is troubling, but I think we just fall victim to sampling bias. Don't let the seas of crap dissuade you from your civic duty of making sound arguments!
Barrin92 9y ago
>Open, civil, and logical debate of ideas is your recourse. If your ideas cannot win over the majority, maybe you (and possibly that society) deserve to lose Why should anybody deserve to lose because they fall victim to the masses? How is that in any way justifiable? This is tyranny of the masses, nothing else. And I would suggest to you that there are numerous countries on this planet that have not elevated free speech to the status of religion, yet guarantee civil rights for much longer than the United States do. >To deny free speech is to oppress. And how does this constitute an argument? We oppress the Marburg virus, why are we supposed to turn the other cheek when our society and our values are threatened by destructive forces?
- davemp 9y ago
  > This is tyranny of the masses, nothing else. It is called democracy. It has brought more success/improved living conditions than any other model (tyranny of the elite) in history. > And I would suggest to you that there are numerous countries on this planet that have not elevated free speech to the status of religion, yet guarantee civil rights for much longer than the United States do. Let's see some citations. Who are these beacons of civil rights? China? India? Colonel England? It is also worth noting that free speech is considered a human right by the UN. [1] > And how does this constitute an argument? It's a circular arguement. I oppress you, you oppress me, we are all one big opressive family. [1]: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/IMG/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/8... > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
  - Barrin92 9y ago
    >Let's see some citations. Who are these beacons of civil rights? China? India? Colonel England? The United Kingdom and France for starters, two countries that were relatively egalitarian while the US was still busy enslaving its African-American population. Of course while free speech was already a thing in the United States.
    - davemp 9y ago
      Free speech were very popular ideas in France/England/USA in that time period. [1,2] France even had free speech protections before the USA did. [2] The USA's notion of free speech was directly influenced by/spawned from Europian ideals and legislation. [3,4] It is ignorant of history to suggest otherwise. While they may not have made it into law has solidly as in the USA, free speech ideals were very present and popular ideal in France/England at those time periods. Europe's "hate speech" laws and censorship of speech/press are from more recent times. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_sp... [3]: http://constitution.laws.com/declaration-of-the-rights-of-man http://constitution.laws.com/declaration-of-the-rights-of-ma... > Articles 10 and 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) were written to address the prohibitive nature of the government in preventing the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

by davemp 9y ago

jpfed 9y ago

>Free speech and competition of ideas is an essential part of our society. That is the familiar way. But when lies travel faster than corrections, and bots can automate the Gish gallop, it's hard to imagine truth actually winning.

davemp 9y ago
All the misinformation and crud out there is troubling, but I think we just fall victim to sampling bias. Don't let the seas of crap dissuade you from your civic duty of making sound arguments!

Barrin92 9y ago

>Open, civil, and logical debate of ideas is your recourse. If your ideas cannot win over the majority, maybe you (and possibly that society) deserve to lose Why should anybody deserve to lose because they fall victim to the masses? How is that in any way justifiable? This is tyranny of the masses, nothing else. And I would suggest to you that there are numerous countries on this planet that have not elevated free speech to the status of religion, yet guarantee civil rights for much longer than the United States do. >To deny free speech is to oppress. And how does this constitute an argument? We oppress the Marburg virus, why are we supposed to turn the other cheek when our society and our values are threatened by destructive forces?

davemp 9y ago
> This is tyranny of the masses, nothing else. It is called democracy. It has brought more success/improved living conditions than any other model (tyranny of the elite) in history. > And I would suggest to you that there are numerous countries on this planet that have not elevated free speech to the status of religion, yet guarantee civil rights for much longer than the United States do. Let's see some citations. Who are these beacons of civil rights? China? India? Colonel England? It is also worth noting that free speech is considered a human right by the UN. [1] > And how does this constitute an argument? It's a circular arguement. I oppress you, you oppress me, we are all one big opressive family. [1]: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/IMG/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/8... > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
- Barrin92 9y ago
  >Let's see some citations. Who are these beacons of civil rights? China? India? Colonel England? The United Kingdom and France for starters, two countries that were relatively egalitarian while the US was still busy enslaving its African-American population. Of course while free speech was already a thing in the United States.
  - davemp 9y ago
    Free speech were very popular ideas in France/England/USA in that time period. [1,2] France even had free speech protections before the USA did. [2] The USA's notion of free speech was directly influenced by/spawned from Europian ideals and legislation. [3,4] It is ignorant of history to suggest otherwise. While they may not have made it into law has solidly as in the USA, free speech ideals were very present and popular ideal in France/England at those time periods. Europe's "hate speech" laws and censorship of speech/press are from more recent times. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_sp... [3]: http://constitution.laws.com/declaration-of-the-rights-of-man http://constitution.laws.com/declaration-of-the-rights-of-ma... > Articles 10 and 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) were written to address the prohibitive nature of the government in preventing the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege