4 ms·

I am becoming far less a fan of "nearly unlimited freedom of speech", based on observing the results of nearly unlimited freedom of speech out in the real world

by beat 8y ago

I am becoming far less a fan of "nearly unlimited freedom of speech", based on observing the results of nearly unlimited freedom of speech out in the real world. I'm quite all right forcing certain ideas underground these days. The degeneration of debate about society to "All things are opinion, and all opinions are equal" is demonstrably dangerous, and the desensitization of the public that comes with it is also demonstrably dangerous. At a certain point, the welfare of society outweighs the freedom of the individual. And you agree with me. Hence the phrase "nearly unlimited".

lucio 8y ago
>the welfare of society outweighs the freedom of the individual That's one of the supporting principles of all totalitarian regimes. The problem is who defines what's the "welfare of society" (Normally is "the Party" or "the Leader"). Individual freedom is an inalienable right, and should not be curtailed, unless you're physically hurting others or infringing on their own freedom.
- beat 8y ago
  Yeah, yeah. How about if you're planning to hurt others? That's "conspiracy" in most "totalitarian regimes" (that is, societies with laws). Is it a crime to point a loaded gun at someone, or only to pull the trigger? How about incitement? Also a crime for any government. If someone encourages a murder, are they at least partly responsible for the murder? Your definitions of freedom and oppression here are trivial mental exercises that fail in real-world application. Who defines what's the "welfare of society"? Depends on the society. You're confusing who defines it with how it is enforced. Governments have a monopoly on violence in the ideal case. Who controls the government? If it's a representative democracy, then it's more or less the will of the people. I've seen this bullshit argument before, rather a lot. I saw it made when I asked if it was okay for the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville to surround a synagogue, torches in hand (which they did). And people with similarly shallow, trivialized senses of freedom and society argued that such behavior was fine, as long as they stayed on the public sidewalk. Is enabling fascism a form of fascism? That's a good question for the theorists. As a friend of mine put it, "If you have to ask what the definition of fascism is in order to argue that you're not a fascist, you're a fascist".
  - joejerryronnie 8y ago
    The world is not black and white. Your examples of overt racism or threatening harm to others are easy calls to make. The problems of censorship and truth arbitration arise as you move toward the grey areas - e.g. one man’s pro-Trump rally in the rural South is another man’s Critical Mass in San Francisco.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    > How about if you're planning to hurt others? The rule of thumb that I go by is "we should allow whatever it is that the United States Supreme Court allows". The thorny edge cases that you are talking about have been explored in depth by the Supreme Court, and I think that they have made good decisions. (IE, the good decisions that they have made is to almost always side in favor of free speech).
    - intended 8y ago
      I promise you, moderators work on thornier edge cases, with less experience and much less time than Supreme Court judges. Further The USA SC is an unrealistic expectation and pointless bar of value when talking about Facebook and international speech.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        > with less experience and much less time than Supreme Court judges. I am not talking about the time that it would take to decide a case. I am instead using the Supreme Court as a general example of where on the scale of freedom/ censorship that platforms should take. The location on that scale should be "What would the supreme court do?" I think that they have chosen a good balance, is why.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >That's one of the supporting principles of all totalitarian regimes. Actually that's one of the supporting principles of all regimes, period.
erik_seaberg 8y ago
Conspiring to suppress even a meritless idea is one of the best ways to reinforce it. The backlash against "no platform" attacks on the marketplace of ideas should have been no surprise.

by beat 8y ago

lucio 8y ago

>the welfare of society outweighs the freedom of the individual That's one of the supporting principles of all totalitarian regimes. The problem is who defines what's the "welfare of society" (Normally is "the Party" or "the Leader"). Individual freedom is an inalienable right, and should not be curtailed, unless you're physically hurting others or infringing on their own freedom.

beat 8y ago
Yeah, yeah. How about if you're planning to hurt others? That's "conspiracy" in most "totalitarian regimes" (that is, societies with laws). Is it a crime to point a loaded gun at someone, or only to pull the trigger? How about incitement? Also a crime for any government. If someone encourages a murder, are they at least partly responsible for the murder? Your definitions of freedom and oppression here are trivial mental exercises that fail in real-world application. Who defines what's the "welfare of society"? Depends on the society. You're confusing who defines it with how it is enforced. Governments have a monopoly on violence in the ideal case. Who controls the government? If it's a representative democracy, then it's more or less the will of the people. I've seen this bullshit argument before, rather a lot. I saw it made when I asked if it was okay for the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville to surround a synagogue, torches in hand (which they did). And people with similarly shallow, trivialized senses of freedom and society argued that such behavior was fine, as long as they stayed on the public sidewalk. Is enabling fascism a form of fascism? That's a good question for the theorists. As a friend of mine put it, "If you have to ask what the definition of fascism is in order to argue that you're not a fascist, you're a fascist".
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  The world is not black and white. Your examples of overt racism or threatening harm to others are easy calls to make. The problems of censorship and truth arbitration arise as you move toward the grey areas - e.g. one man’s pro-Trump rally in the rural South is another man’s Critical Mass in San Francisco.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > How about if you're planning to hurt others? The rule of thumb that I go by is "we should allow whatever it is that the United States Supreme Court allows". The thorny edge cases that you are talking about have been explored in depth by the Supreme Court, and I think that they have made good decisions. (IE, the good decisions that they have made is to almost always side in favor of free speech).
  - intended 8y ago
    I promise you, moderators work on thornier edge cases, with less experience and much less time than Supreme Court judges. Further The USA SC is an unrealistic expectation and pointless bar of value when talking about Facebook and international speech.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      > with less experience and much less time than Supreme Court judges. I am not talking about the time that it would take to decide a case. I am instead using the Supreme Court as a general example of where on the scale of freedom/ censorship that platforms should take. The location on that scale should be "What would the supreme court do?" I think that they have chosen a good balance, is why.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>That's one of the supporting principles of all totalitarian regimes. Actually that's one of the supporting principles of all regimes, period.

erik_seaberg 8y ago

Conspiring to suppress even a meritless idea is one of the best ways to reinforce it. The backlash against "no platform" attacks on the marketplace of ideas should have been no surprise.