3 ms·
In the case here, the lawless actions have repeatedly been demonstrated; and the speech promoting them isn't vague in the least. I agree that there should be s
by emn13 9y ago
In the case here, the lawless actions have repeatedly been demonstrated; and the speech promoting them isn't vague in the least.
I agree that there should be some limits on what can be censored (although really, I'm not sure this is even traditional censorship, since it's after-the-fact and doesn't extend to all channels the message is posted on). It's more like tearing down a gang stronghold - it's not necessarily going to prevent any individual gang member from doing what they did before, but it might disrupt the negative feedback loop that encourages "lawless action". Notably the government's court argument rests critically on this being an association; so there is some check on this power. It cannot with the same argument prevent the individuals from making the same suggestions.
Regardless: I definitely value free speech. I just think we should be open to consider exactly which limits are useful, and which are not.
I for one believe the chilling effects of this kind of action are much smaller and less dangerous than the chilling effects caused by libel, fraud and copyright laws, especially as they pertain to corporations - a concept that didn't even exist (in its modern form) when the US constitution was drafted.
If you will: any organisation can hold power; not just government. The point of freedom of speech should not be to protect us (and ironically itself!) from government; but from its power - and if so, why limit that to governmental power?
I see free speech and democracy as a kind of way or protecting society from local minima: a reality check to ensure we break out of nasty patterns. I'm not sure it's working very well with respect to large "private" entities. I'm not saying it's failed either; I'm just a little worried ;-). Liberal democracy has had a long time to rest on its laurels. Perhaps we take it for granted a little too much, and thus aren't vigilant enough to competitors and internal weaknesses.
In any case: thanks for the unexpectedly gracious reply in the face of my somewhat peeved response ;-).
- ameister14 9y ago>I see free speech and democracy as a kind of way or protecting society from local minima: a reality check to ensure we break out of nasty patterns. I'm not sure it's working very well with respect to large "private" entities. It's interesting to me that you would say that, because if you look at the US in the late 19th and early 20th century when the country had significantly more powerful private entities than we do today, it was the press that helped to change public opinion and decrease their direct power and control. I believe free speech is necessary so that speech advocating lawless action doesn't become necessary. By that I mean that advocating for a change in policy or type of government should be allowed and be open as the alternative is significantly greater violence. The revolutions in France and the US began with open words and attempts to change policy. When that started to be punished, the eventual result was not people changing their minds, but instead others going underground and violence increasing at a dramatic pace. Many other revolutions and rebellions, failed and successful, began the same way. That's why people advocating the overthrow of government need to be allowed to speak openly and be heard. They can then be reasoned with and if necessary placated.