4 ms·
Of course, the only bad speech is speech you personally dislike?
by internet_user 7y ago
Of course, the only bad speech is speech you personally dislike?
- pilif 7y agoI feel that an easy rule to apply is that speech about hurting or even killing others is unambiguously bad speech Everything else is up for debate. But this single exception I hope every human being can agree on.
- internet_user 7y agoHow about you go and campaign to ban major news networks from reporting on successful drone strikes and bombing raids in Iraq/Syria /other such places.
- pilif 7y agoReporting on harm is not the same as inciting harm
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- whenchamenia 7y agoExcept when it is.
- MockObject 7y agoCan every human being agree that military recruitment ads are unambiguously bad speech?
- rfrey 7y agoOf course it will be true on its face that "bad speech" will be disliked by the people claiming it is bad. This phrase suggests that ALL speech that non-absolutists dislike will be categorized as harmful enough to society to be disallowed. That is a view nobody I've ever met holds. I am not a free speech absolutist. I believe 99.9999% of speech I dislike, even speech I dislike intensely and believe is harmful to society, should still be allowed by society. That I think 0.00001% crosses a line where its harm outweighs the benefit of an zero-tolerance, non-negotiable absolute freedom of speech. Throwing off a facile "oh, you'll just ban speech you don't like" is just jingoism. It's no different than saying people who favour less immigration are Nazis, or people who favour universal health care are communists. It avoids thinking by name-calling.
- internet_user 7y agoOK, so what is the "0.00001%" speech that justifies prison sentence ? Ordering someone to shoot you? Aka "clear and imminent threat" ?