3 ms·

> Yes, it is interesting that the author sees no place in the modern world for the kind of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Well, there is such

> Yes, it is interesting that the author sees no place in the modern world for the kind of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Well, there is such a place. The U.S. However, in Germany, German rules of speech apply. As a German, I consider this a good thing. And remember, the German constitution was written at the pleasure of the allies -- the US were apparently quite happy with the way our constitution balances freedom and responsibility. And, corner cases aside, so am I. I prefer "responsible speech" to the US "wild west speech". This is largely cultural I'm sure. Of course once we accept that Germany can insist on their own model of speech, so can China. Or Syria. Or Thailand. Which I find hardly ideal, given that I'd like to propagate liberal (and, dare I say it, "western") values. But I don't have a decent solution to this conundrum.

saas_co_de 9y ago
> Well, there is such a place. The U.S. That is sort of the point. Once all speech transits corporate networks and those corporations are empowered to censor that speech then the public square protected by the U.S. Constitution no longer exists.
- weepingprophet 9y ago
  But Facebook already "censors" algorithmically. You are not shown a democratic slice from a marketplace of opinions. You are given a curated echo chamber of voices algorithmically optimized to keep you engaged/enraged. The voices that rise to the top are either the ones with the deepest pockets or the ones that most activate the lizard part of our brains.
ams6110 9y ago
> US were apparently quite happy That's not necessarily the case. They may have accepted it as a best compromise, as they did the division of Germany into East and West.
RaleyField 9y ago
> But I don't have a decent solution to this conundrum. I have. The German model is wrong for the reasons you allured to. If states can't be trusted to be arbiter of acceptable speech then they shouldn't have that job. > And remember, the German constitution was written at the pleasure of the allies That would be an appeal to authority and we all know US made few mistakes in the past so I'm not sure why you'd want to use that fallacy. > This is largely cultural I'm sure. Must be. Thinking that the state is always right and bossing people that disagree is historically very German.

saas_co_de 9y ago

> Well, there is such a place. The U.S. That is sort of the point. Once all speech transits corporate networks and those corporations are empowered to censor that speech then the public square protected by the U.S. Constitution no longer exists.

weepingprophet 9y ago
But Facebook already "censors" algorithmically. You are not shown a democratic slice from a marketplace of opinions. You are given a curated echo chamber of voices algorithmically optimized to keep you engaged/enraged. The voices that rise to the top are either the ones with the deepest pockets or the ones that most activate the lizard part of our brains.

ams6110 9y ago

> US were apparently quite happy That's not necessarily the case. They may have accepted it as a best compromise, as they did the division of Germany into East and West.

RaleyField 9y ago

> But I don't have a decent solution to this conundrum. I have. The German model is wrong for the reasons you allured to. If states can't be trusted to be arbiter of acceptable speech then they shouldn't have that job. > And remember, the German constitution was written at the pleasure of the allies That would be an appeal to authority and we all know US made few mistakes in the past so I'm not sure why you'd want to use that fallacy. > This is largely cultural I'm sure. Must be. Thinking that the state is always right and bossing people that disagree is historically very German.