3 ms·
Using words that do not directly harass, libel, or slander another person or group is harmless, even if those words are charged and disagreed with by the majori
by cabaalis 9y ago
Using words that do not directly harass, libel, or slander another person or group is harmless, even if those words are charged and disagreed with by the majority. The actions that people take upon hearing or reading words are solely their own.
- blacksmith_tb 9y agoI would like to agree, but there are some strong counterexamples[1], though by the same token, I find it hard to accept that we would make policies designed to think for people on the grounds they can't be trusted to do so themselves. It points to a means-end problem at the very least. 1: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm
- exogen 9y agoI find this viewpoint ridiculous on the face of it. Consider outright propaganda that does not directly harass, libel, or slander another person or group. Propaganda on the order of "1984". Harmless? A giant news corp. convinces a large segment of the population that 2+2=5. It wreaks havoc on people's ability to do real science and engineering and sows distrust of actual expert mathematicians who know the truth. Some of these believers are politicians, instituting policies that affect you. Harmless?
- psyc 9y agoFor me, the question is not about whether it's harmful. I believe the central question, especially since we're talking about freedom of speech, is whether the state is the proper tool to use to reduce the harm. From my point of view as a 40 year old american, it feels as though the present discourse is much quicker to default to the state to solve problems, than it was when I was young. I don't think using the state to solve everything is unreasonable on its face, but I do think history teaches it tends towards disaster in the limit.