3 ms·

I don't know that limiting free speech addresses such abuses. Maybe the spread of "free-form-facts" propaganda is not as significant, as that there is a large

I don't know that limiting free speech addresses such abuses. Maybe the spread of "free-form-facts" propaganda is not as significant, as that there is a large subset of people who are easily misled. If you can't judge and think critically about the stuff you hear you're basically a house plant with complicated emotions. Also how do you know what is propaganda and what is not if you've never been exposed to it?

spiderfarmer 8y ago
"free speech" or "freedom of expression" was never without limits. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR amends the "freedom of expression" by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr...
- oldsklgdfth 8y ago
  That's a strong point. I have always thought of freedoms being limited by the effect they have on others' freedoms. You can't use your freedoms at the expense of someone else's freedom. E.g. you can't kill someone because you are restricting their right to live. That being said, speech is kinda nuanced. Because, spoken word does not directly affect other freedoms. In extreme cases, like shouting "fire" in the theater or "bomb" in an airport, speech is limited because of the direct link between it and the result. But that's not really the case with propaganda, even if it is the goal to misled. To conclude, we are victims to our own freedom of speech if it can be used against us. If someone can say outrageous things and there are people that hear it and don't immediately think "huh, that's crazy" and walk away that is a different problem. But I don't think the solution is telling him to go sit in the corner, I feel like this wrong and also polarizing.
- leereeves 8y ago
  The ICCPR allows Thailand to make insulting the king illegal, Pakistan to make blasphemy illegal, and Israel to ban boycotts. It allows so many "certain restrictions" that the freedom effectively ceases to exist.
  - spiderfarmer 8y ago
    As I commented elsewhere: If the article was worded differently, would it make any difference when there is no way of holding bad-faith regimes accountable? There are strict limits on free speech in Germany, showing it can work as intended. If anything, it shows that free speech can be abused by bigots on both sides.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      No, it shows that restrictions on freedom of speech can be abused, and that abuse usually takes the form of banning opposition to the ruling party or their ideas. And as I pointed out in my response to your other comment, Germany has been governed by the SPD/CDU coalition since 1974. Banning opposition works.
      - spiderfarmer 8y ago
        "Banning opposition works." You're either misinterpreting facts or wilfully ignorant. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/germany-s-top-court-rules-against-ban-on-far-right-ndp https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/germany-s-top-...
        leereeves 8y ago
        In Germany, they ban ideas. https://qz.com/668713/a-new-arrest-shows-you-cant-criticize-turkish-president-erdogan-in-germany/ https://qz.com/668713/a-new-arrest-shows-you-cant-criticize-... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12174806/Germany-fines-man-for-blasphemous-car-bumper-stickers.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12...

spiderfarmer 8y ago

"free speech" or "freedom of expression" was never without limits. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR amends the "freedom of expression" by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr...

oldsklgdfth 8y ago
That's a strong point. I have always thought of freedoms being limited by the effect they have on others' freedoms. You can't use your freedoms at the expense of someone else's freedom. E.g. you can't kill someone because you are restricting their right to live. That being said, speech is kinda nuanced. Because, spoken word does not directly affect other freedoms. In extreme cases, like shouting "fire" in the theater or "bomb" in an airport, speech is limited because of the direct link between it and the result. But that's not really the case with propaganda, even if it is the goal to misled. To conclude, we are victims to our own freedom of speech if it can be used against us. If someone can say outrageous things and there are people that hear it and don't immediately think "huh, that's crazy" and walk away that is a different problem. But I don't think the solution is telling him to go sit in the corner, I feel like this wrong and also polarizing.
leereeves 8y ago
The ICCPR allows Thailand to make insulting the king illegal, Pakistan to make blasphemy illegal, and Israel to ban boycotts. It allows so many "certain restrictions" that the freedom effectively ceases to exist.
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  As I commented elsewhere: If the article was worded differently, would it make any difference when there is no way of holding bad-faith regimes accountable? There are strict limits on free speech in Germany, showing it can work as intended. If anything, it shows that free speech can be abused by bigots on both sides.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    No, it shows that restrictions on freedom of speech can be abused, and that abuse usually takes the form of banning opposition to the ruling party or their ideas. And as I pointed out in my response to your other comment, Germany has been governed by the SPD/CDU coalition since 1974. Banning opposition works.
    - spiderfarmer 8y ago
      "Banning opposition works." You're either misinterpreting facts or wilfully ignorant. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/germany-s-top-court-rules-against-ban-on-far-right-ndp https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/germany-s-top-...
      - leereeves 8y ago
        In Germany, they ban ideas. https://qz.com/668713/a-new-arrest-shows-you-cant-criticize-turkish-president-erdogan-in-germany/ https://qz.com/668713/a-new-arrest-shows-you-cant-criticize-... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12174806/Germany-fines-man-for-blasphemous-car-bumper-stickers.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12...