4 ms·

Are you serious? Lies are and should be protected under free speech. There was a time that the scientific community believed the earth was flat and the sun rev

Are you serious? Lies are and should be protected under free speech. There was a time that the scientific community believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. People with different opinions should not be forcefully silenced. The government should not be able to decide which ideas are "lies." In this case, Facebook can ban anyone they want, but that has nothing to do with free speech.

gambiting 7y ago
>>Are you serious? Lies are and should be protected under free speech. Certain lies definitely shouldn't. Denying holocaust happened is illegal where I'm from and it should be.
- shittyadmin 7y ago
  Why exactly should that be illegal? The government should not be the decider of truths. At least if private entities implement this kind of thing, those who wish can still discuss it someplace else. Though pushing these things under the rug doesn't have the best reputation (see recent 8chan tied shooting).
  - gambiting 7y ago
    Because our country has lost 6 million people in WW2 and the holocaust, estimated 1/5th of total population. Saying that it hasn't happened is more than just a lie - it's attacking the core being of our identity and denying the atrocities that were done against us. It should be illegal and luckily it is. Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - shittyadmin 7y ago
      > Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal. Why would scale change people's values compared to say 9/11? It's important to me that we're the deciders of truth for ourselves. I believe people fighting in those wars have fought for my right to believe what I choose and not what a government tells me. Think about this in the context China, even today and I think you'll see why I feel this is an incredibly valuable right. Governments can lie too, the American one has many times throughout history and we should and do demand a right to question it.
- 1995iarrived 7y ago
  That’s an incredibly eurocentric point of view, and not applicable to the vast majority of the human race.
  - kolanos 7y ago
    No kidding. Remember all those U.S. laws enacted to censor 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Oh wait. That didn't happen because such laws would be unconstitutional.
    - gambiting 7y ago
      Like I said in my other reply - if 60 million(5th of current population) instead of 3000 people died in those attacks, I strongly believe even US would reconsider such position.
      - kolanos 7y ago
        If your values change based on the magnitude of an atrocity then I suggest considering whether you hold those values at all. I certainly feel for the Polish people and the extreme suffering endured in the 20th century. But in my experience, suffering builds resolve, and it may jus be that Poland does not consider free speech a fundamental right. My homeland doesn't either, much to my disappointment.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- jimmy1 7y ago
  That's because the US made you as part of the Marshall Plan (assuming where you are from is Germany)
  - gambiting 7y ago
    Nope, Poland. And it's not just Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...
- moosey 7y ago
  I very much agree. I'm personally of the opinion that anti-climate change propaganda needs to be made illegal as well. I consider the failure to allow anti-climate change speech as an act of hatred against future generations. 200 years ago, I understand the need for free speech, particularly when powers were so evenly spread, socially, between the church and other powers. Limiting speech would have most likely meant limiting scientific and social development. That process has now reversed, I think, and currently unlimited free speech aids in producing one of the most sophisticated and powerful propaganda systems that has ever existed. I don't think that humans can deal with this in any natural, social way. The parts of the human brain that it takes advantage of is so pervasive that without extensive personal training, most people can't actually work their way around it. EDIT: I think I should clarify. I don't mind the person on the street saying whatever they please, but no one person deserves a soap box on which to lie. The powers of the FCC regarding propaganda need to be expanded so that news organizations are required to inform the truth.
  - globlist 7y ago
    You're a climate hysteric. It's not illegal to challenge that hysteria but it is made difficult by overwhelming propaganda. People don't argue with you because it is a religion now. You believe the shit data and the shit models predictions. Why? Because it's been drilled into your head. Settled science?, a consensus?--that's all unscientific religious talk.
- lohszvu 7y ago
  That's where we disagree.
singhrac 7y ago
I mostly agree with you that lying is generally considered speech (and I wouldn't want the government to necessarily censor in the way Facebook is doing here) but lying that causes panic is not considered speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > "The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. " Hmm. Call me crazy, but I think that should be legal.
Bjartr 7y ago
There's a number of responses to this comment, and others in this thread discussing free speech, its definition, and its implications. Here's what I believe to be a decent resource explaining a number of common misunderstandings that come up in such discussions. https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

gambiting 7y ago

>>Are you serious? Lies are and should be protected under free speech. Certain lies definitely shouldn't. Denying holocaust happened is illegal where I'm from and it should be.

shittyadmin 7y ago
Why exactly should that be illegal? The government should not be the decider of truths. At least if private entities implement this kind of thing, those who wish can still discuss it someplace else. Though pushing these things under the rug doesn't have the best reputation (see recent 8chan tied shooting).
- gambiting 7y ago
  Because our country has lost 6 million people in WW2 and the holocaust, estimated 1/5th of total population. Saying that it hasn't happened is more than just a lie - it's attacking the core being of our identity and denying the atrocities that were done against us. It should be illegal and luckily it is. Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - shittyadmin 7y ago
    > Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal. Why would scale change people's values compared to say 9/11? It's important to me that we're the deciders of truth for ourselves. I believe people fighting in those wars have fought for my right to believe what I choose and not what a government tells me. Think about this in the context China, even today and I think you'll see why I feel this is an incredibly valuable right. Governments can lie too, the American one has many times throughout history and we should and do demand a right to question it.
1995iarrived 7y ago
That’s an incredibly eurocentric point of view, and not applicable to the vast majority of the human race.
- kolanos 7y ago
  No kidding. Remember all those U.S. laws enacted to censor 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Oh wait. That didn't happen because such laws would be unconstitutional.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    Like I said in my other reply - if 60 million(5th of current population) instead of 3000 people died in those attacks, I strongly believe even US would reconsider such position.
    - kolanos 7y ago
      If your values change based on the magnitude of an atrocity then I suggest considering whether you hold those values at all. I certainly feel for the Polish people and the extreme suffering endured in the 20th century. But in my experience, suffering builds resolve, and it may jus be that Poland does not consider free speech a fundamental right. My homeland doesn't either, much to my disappointment.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jimmy1 7y ago
That's because the US made you as part of the Marshall Plan (assuming where you are from is Germany)
- gambiting 7y ago
  Nope, Poland. And it's not just Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...
moosey 7y ago
I very much agree. I'm personally of the opinion that anti-climate change propaganda needs to be made illegal as well. I consider the failure to allow anti-climate change speech as an act of hatred against future generations. 200 years ago, I understand the need for free speech, particularly when powers were so evenly spread, socially, between the church and other powers. Limiting speech would have most likely meant limiting scientific and social development. That process has now reversed, I think, and currently unlimited free speech aids in producing one of the most sophisticated and powerful propaganda systems that has ever existed. I don't think that humans can deal with this in any natural, social way. The parts of the human brain that it takes advantage of is so pervasive that without extensive personal training, most people can't actually work their way around it. EDIT: I think I should clarify. I don't mind the person on the street saying whatever they please, but no one person deserves a soap box on which to lie. The powers of the FCC regarding propaganda need to be expanded so that news organizations are required to inform the truth.
- globlist 7y ago
  You're a climate hysteric. It's not illegal to challenge that hysteria but it is made difficult by overwhelming propaganda. People don't argue with you because it is a religion now. You believe the shit data and the shit models predictions. Why? Because it's been drilled into your head. Settled science?, a consensus?--that's all unscientific religious talk.
lohszvu 7y ago
That's where we disagree.

singhrac 7y ago

I mostly agree with you that lying is generally considered speech (and I wouldn't want the government to necessarily censor in the way Facebook is doing here) but lying that causes panic is not considered speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...

darkpuma 7y ago
> "The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. " Hmm. Call me crazy, but I think that should be legal.

Bjartr 7y ago

There's a number of responses to this comment, and others in this thread discussing free speech, its definition, and its implications. Here's what I believe to be a decent resource explaining a number of common misunderstandings that come up in such discussions. https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...