3 ms·

You're making the same class of mistake made by people who support (for instance) the death penalty against criminals in group X because their loved one was a v

You're making the same class of mistake made by people who support (for instance) the death penalty against criminals in group X because their loved one was a victim of one of those criminals. I empathize with you and understand that your experience must have been very difficult. That said, there are fundamental freedoms that must be defended even when the group in question is distasteful. Freedom to speak your mind -- and possibly propagate dumb conspiracies -- is one of them.

panicthrowaway 7y ago
You are not free to ruin someone's life with lies, that is not how freedom of speech works. These are not dumb conspiracies they are psychological abuse. Look at QAnon, they basically convinced a guy to go shoot up a pizza parlor because of that kind of rhetoric.
- throw11223344 7y ago
  QAnon is clearly fabricated and created as a follow-up to FBIAnon. Pizzagate has nothing to do with that, pizzagate is also a partial fabrication, covering up the crimes of Podesta and Alefantis etc by pushing it to be so absurd it is unbelievable.
  - ffdjjjffjj 7y ago
    Uh, partial? Which parts of pizzagate do you think are real?
    - throw11223344 7y ago
      google "tony podesta art"
geofft 7y ago
Freedom to speak your mind, when it directly leads to the infringement of others' rights, is not a fundamental right. I have no right to say "Hey, so-and-so is a cheat, don't do business with them," however strongly I believe it, when they're not. I have no right to say "You should rob a bank, and I'll teach you how." I have no right to say "This herb will cure your disease" merely because I believe it, if nobody has convinced the government to also believe it. Heck, I don't even have the right to repeat your comment, except in specific ways and circumstances. It is true that fundamental rights must be preserved even when used distastefully. But the fundamental right of freedom of speech is not a right to say whatever whenever, and it is not at all clear to me that propagating dumb conspiracies in a way that leads to violence is within the line. (Nor propagating smart conspiracies—since it's not the conspiracy itself that makes it questionable here.)
- ColanR 7y ago
  Your idea of the limitations of our right to free speech seems to depend on a referee; otherwise, it seems that you are conflating the idea of 'rights' with 'legality'. > I have no right to say "Hey, so-and-so is a cheat, don't do business with them," however strongly I believe it, when they're not. Who gets to say they are or are not a cheat? Spreading false rumours is reprehensible, but within your right to speak freely: just like the so-called cheat has the right to sue the rumour-maker for defamation. > I have no right to say "You should rob a bank, and I'll teach you how." It's illegal to encourage/enable illegal actions, but you have the right to do illegal things - just like you have the right to bear the consequences of your illegal actions. > I have no right to say "This herb will cure your disease" merely because I believe it, if nobody has convinced the government to also believe it. What if the herb (or cutting-edge treatment developed in some other country) works beautifully in another country, but the FDA in the US doesn't recognize it yet? You've set up the US government as the referee who gets to decide when we are allowed to have our right to free speech. > I don't even have the right to repeat your comment, except in specific ways and circumstances. You have the right to repeat the comment however you like - but you also have the right to be sued under copyright and defamation laws. > fundamental rights must be preserved even when used distastefully They are also, as recognized in the US declaration of independence, unalienable: the government has no say in whether we get to have them. > not at all clear to me that propagating dumb conspiracies in a way that leads to violence is within the line...since it's not the conspiracy itself that makes it questionable here As you point out; someone theorizes about a Bad Person, someone reads that conspiracy stuff online, and decides to 'do something' about it, and tries to shoot that Bad Person. In the US Code, inciting to commit a crime looks like this: "whoever...solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct". So what exactly do you mean by "in a way that leads to violence"? Because what the US code describes is vastly different from "theorizing about the existence of a conspiracy", however 'out there' the conspiracy is. And in at least the example of the pizzagate shooter, he persuaded himself of his actions - the conspiracy just made him think that a Very Bad Thing was happening there. And there is nothing wrong with theorizing about the existence of a conspiracy of people doing Bad Things.
  - 7y ago
panicthrowaway 7y ago
Let us evaluate your statement. >You're making the same class of mistake made by people who support (for instance) the death penalty against criminals in group X because their loved one was a victim of one of those criminals. First, I am not making a statement for or against capital punishment. That is a strawman argument and false dichotomy. Second, there is no overlap between criminal and civil jurisprudence and capital punishment here. >That said, there are fundamental freedoms that must be defended even when the group in question is distasteful. Freedom to speak your mind -- and possibly propagate dumb conspiracies -- is one of them. There is not a unlimited waiver of consequences for making false statements defined anywhere in the first amendment. Defamation, libel and slander are examples of speech that can be prosecuted under the law. Defamation in my case would be false statements that an individual made specific criminal allegations as well as engagement in certain sexual misconduct. To suggest that this is protected speech is not only wrong but dead wrong.

panicthrowaway 7y ago

You are not free to ruin someone's life with lies, that is not how freedom of speech works. These are not dumb conspiracies they are psychological abuse. Look at QAnon, they basically convinced a guy to go shoot up a pizza parlor because of that kind of rhetoric.

throw11223344 7y ago
QAnon is clearly fabricated and created as a follow-up to FBIAnon. Pizzagate has nothing to do with that, pizzagate is also a partial fabrication, covering up the crimes of Podesta and Alefantis etc by pushing it to be so absurd it is unbelievable.
- ffdjjjffjj 7y ago
  Uh, partial? Which parts of pizzagate do you think are real?
  - throw11223344 7y ago
    google "tony podesta art"

geofft 7y ago

Freedom to speak your mind, when it directly leads to the infringement of others' rights, is not a fundamental right. I have no right to say "Hey, so-and-so is a cheat, don't do business with them," however strongly I believe it, when they're not. I have no right to say "You should rob a bank, and I'll teach you how." I have no right to say "This herb will cure your disease" merely because I believe it, if nobody has convinced the government to also believe it. Heck, I don't even have the right to repeat your comment, except in specific ways and circumstances. It is true that fundamental rights must be preserved even when used distastefully. But the fundamental right of freedom of speech is not a right to say whatever whenever, and it is not at all clear to me that propagating dumb conspiracies in a way that leads to violence is within the line. (Nor propagating smart conspiracies—since it's not the conspiracy itself that makes it questionable here.)

ColanR 7y ago
Your idea of the limitations of our right to free speech seems to depend on a referee; otherwise, it seems that you are conflating the idea of 'rights' with 'legality'. > I have no right to say "Hey, so-and-so is a cheat, don't do business with them," however strongly I believe it, when they're not. Who gets to say they are or are not a cheat? Spreading false rumours is reprehensible, but within your right to speak freely: just like the so-called cheat has the right to sue the rumour-maker for defamation. > I have no right to say "You should rob a bank, and I'll teach you how." It's illegal to encourage/enable illegal actions, but you have the right to do illegal things - just like you have the right to bear the consequences of your illegal actions. > I have no right to say "This herb will cure your disease" merely because I believe it, if nobody has convinced the government to also believe it. What if the herb (or cutting-edge treatment developed in some other country) works beautifully in another country, but the FDA in the US doesn't recognize it yet? You've set up the US government as the referee who gets to decide when we are allowed to have our right to free speech. > I don't even have the right to repeat your comment, except in specific ways and circumstances. You have the right to repeat the comment however you like - but you also have the right to be sued under copyright and defamation laws. > fundamental rights must be preserved even when used distastefully They are also, as recognized in the US declaration of independence, unalienable: the government has no say in whether we get to have them. > not at all clear to me that propagating dumb conspiracies in a way that leads to violence is within the line...since it's not the conspiracy itself that makes it questionable here As you point out; someone theorizes about a Bad Person, someone reads that conspiracy stuff online, and decides to 'do something' about it, and tries to shoot that Bad Person. In the US Code, inciting to commit a crime looks like this: "whoever...solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct". So what exactly do you mean by "in a way that leads to violence"? Because what the US code describes is vastly different from "theorizing about the existence of a conspiracy", however 'out there' the conspiracy is. And in at least the example of the pizzagate shooter, he persuaded himself of his actions - the conspiracy just made him think that a Very Bad Thing was happening there. And there is nothing wrong with theorizing about the existence of a conspiracy of people doing Bad Things.
- 7y ago

panicthrowaway 7y ago

Let us evaluate your statement. >You're making the same class of mistake made by people who support (for instance) the death penalty against criminals in group X because their loved one was a victim of one of those criminals. First, I am not making a statement for or against capital punishment. That is a strawman argument and false dichotomy. Second, there is no overlap between criminal and civil jurisprudence and capital punishment here. >That said, there are fundamental freedoms that must be defended even when the group in question is distasteful. Freedom to speak your mind -- and possibly propagate dumb conspiracies -- is one of them. There is not a unlimited waiver of consequences for making false statements defined anywhere in the first amendment. Defamation, libel and slander are examples of speech that can be prosecuted under the law. Defamation in my case would be false statements that an individual made specific criminal allegations as well as engagement in certain sexual misconduct. To suggest that this is protected speech is not only wrong but dead wrong.