4 ms·
I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves
by noobermin 8y ago
I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned. Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned. When the penalty is censorship of future speech, it's still a prior restraint. And shadowbanning is obviously not compatible with any kind of due process or even an opportunity to know that you've been accused. > Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are. Which is why the traditional categories have been narrowly drawn and limited to things that are as apolitical and non-partisan as possible.
- noobermin 8y agoI mean, how is making libel unlawful not censorship of future speech under your definition, or making threats unlawful censorship of future threats? How is this different?
- AnthonyMouse 8y agoThe difference is that the censorship happens before due process rather than imposing punishment only after the plaintiff proves their case.