4 ms·
> To say nothing of facial expressions. If followed down properly, this rabbit hole of a logic leads pretty deep. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficu
by ChristianBundy 8y ago
> To say nothing of facial expressions. If followed down properly, this rabbit hole of a logic leads pretty deep.
I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time drawing the line between billboards and facial expressions.
How about this: "People should be able to express opinions and propaganda however they'd like. Inanimate objects in public spaces should be constrained by something similar to the Fairness Doctrine[0], where factual information is allowed but blatant propaganda is not".
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- nine_k 8y agoYou see, certain cultures already put this line much closer to facial expressions, and find it appropriate to wear veils of some kinds to conceal them. I'm not only talking about e.g. Muslim cultures; veils were pretty normal in 19th century's Europe (though not as thick as in 16th-century Europe). So my question is where the line will be drawn, because removing the unconscious form humans seems infeasible, no matter how cultures try.
- canhascodez 8y agoWhen facial expressions start causing social harm I'm sure we'll regulate those too, but this is the most bizarre slippery slope I've ever seen.
- dwaltrip 8y agoI think you aren't giving humanity enough credit in its ability to differentiate among the enormously wide variety of subconscious effects. It seems a bit strange to say they all fit comfortably in the same bucket and thus we can't handle them differently.