3 ms·

Moral principles don't need to be justified by the "legitimate public interest" (in the short run), otherwise we would kill all babies that we predict will beco

Moral principles don't need to be justified by the "legitimate public interest" (in the short run), otherwise we would kill all babies that we predict will become criminals, even thought they've done nothing wrong yet. I think laws should be fair and consistent. Censorship is inconsistent with freedom and justice. Additionally, the interpretation of messages is subjective. If laws are inconsistent and arbitrary (and consequently, unfair), then you might as well throw moral principles out the window altogether and become a fascist, a white supremacist, etc. The only way to have a just society, in my opinion, is when freedom of the individual is the base of all laws, and those laws are logical and consistent with each other.

LargeWu 7y ago
"individual is the base of all laws" Yes. The Individual. Well, what about the rights of the 29 individuals that were randomly murdered, plus the scores of others wounded this past weekend? What about their justice? I'm sure it's fun for you to treat all of this as some sort of abstract thought experiment, but the reality is that people are dying senselessly and violently for no reason other than we as a society won't make difficult decisions in the name of "principle".
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Except we only apply that thinking to things we don't like, and that varies from individual to individual. If alcohol results in more deaths than hate speech, do we ban bars? Or do you think you should be allowed to make grown-up decisions because you're not the one killing people? edit: And to be clear, I fully support a private company's refusal to do further business with 8chan as much as their contract allows. But I tire of these arguments about how somebody died, so we have to do something, and ignoring all further reasoning.
  - LargeWu 7y ago
    That's a completely irrelevant comparison. People who die from alcohol-related deaths have a choice whether or not to consume alcohol. The 29 people who died this past weekend in El Paso and Dayton were not given a choice whether they wanted to get shot by terrorists.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      >> People who die from alcohol-related deaths have a choice whether or not to consume alcohol. That's not always true - many people die as the innocent victims in DUI collisions. If there were more people dying innocently from alcohol, would you support shutting down bars that had been used by people who drove drunk, because other individuals lost their freedom?
    - LargeWu 7y ago
      To TallGuyShort, since I can't reply to you: Bartenders can be held criminally responsible if they continue to serve somebody who is obviously intoxicated, and who then goes out and kills somebody in a drunk driving crash. If bars continue to have problems over serving they can lose their liquor license. That's the analogue here. 8chan is the bar that's over-serving.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  Shooting people is obviously against freedom, should be illegal and is illegal. You're insinuating that if freedom of speech laws in the US were less principled, those people wouldn't have died. But maybe if news outlets didn't report on mass shootings those people wouldn't have died too, should we prohibit news outlets from reporting these things? It's not the fault of free speech that some mentally unstable person killed people, the same way it's not the fault of the journalists that report these tragedies.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    It's not the fault of free speech that some mentally unstable person killed people Assumes facts not in evidence
    - whenchamenia 7y ago
      I think you need to prove that words killed, not the other way around. Freedon is the default.
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        I'm talking about the assumption of mental illness.
- khawkins 7y ago
  Your definition of "justice" is warped beyond recognition. Justice doesn't mean bad things don't happen, it means people who wrong others pay for their actions. Thousands of people every year are randomly murdered for no good reason. Many actually never get closed, meaning no one actually goes to jail or gets punished for their murder. These people actually don't receive justice, but obviously we can't live in a perfect society. You're oversimplifying a complex issue to accuse others of being heartless. It's the lazy moralizing of tyranny.

LargeWu 7y ago

"individual is the base of all laws" Yes. The Individual. Well, what about the rights of the 29 individuals that were randomly murdered, plus the scores of others wounded this past weekend? What about their justice? I'm sure it's fun for you to treat all of this as some sort of abstract thought experiment, but the reality is that people are dying senselessly and violently for no reason other than we as a society won't make difficult decisions in the name of "principle".

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Except we only apply that thinking to things we don't like, and that varies from individual to individual. If alcohol results in more deaths than hate speech, do we ban bars? Or do you think you should be allowed to make grown-up decisions because you're not the one killing people? edit: And to be clear, I fully support a private company's refusal to do further business with 8chan as much as their contract allows. But I tire of these arguments about how somebody died, so we have to do something, and ignoring all further reasoning.
- LargeWu 7y ago
  That's a completely irrelevant comparison. People who die from alcohol-related deaths have a choice whether or not to consume alcohol. The 29 people who died this past weekend in El Paso and Dayton were not given a choice whether they wanted to get shot by terrorists.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    >> People who die from alcohol-related deaths have a choice whether or not to consume alcohol. That's not always true - many people die as the innocent victims in DUI collisions. If there were more people dying innocently from alcohol, would you support shutting down bars that had been used by people who drove drunk, because other individuals lost their freedom?
  - LargeWu 7y ago
    To TallGuyShort, since I can't reply to you: Bartenders can be held criminally responsible if they continue to serve somebody who is obviously intoxicated, and who then goes out and kills somebody in a drunk driving crash. If bars continue to have problems over serving they can lose their liquor license. That's the analogue here. 8chan is the bar that's over-serving.
lone_haxx0r 7y ago
Shooting people is obviously against freedom, should be illegal and is illegal. You're insinuating that if freedom of speech laws in the US were less principled, those people wouldn't have died. But maybe if news outlets didn't report on mass shootings those people wouldn't have died too, should we prohibit news outlets from reporting these things? It's not the fault of free speech that some mentally unstable person killed people, the same way it's not the fault of the journalists that report these tragedies.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  It's not the fault of free speech that some mentally unstable person killed people Assumes facts not in evidence
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    I think you need to prove that words killed, not the other way around. Freedon is the default.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      I'm talking about the assumption of mental illness.
khawkins 7y ago
Your definition of "justice" is warped beyond recognition. Justice doesn't mean bad things don't happen, it means people who wrong others pay for their actions. Thousands of people every year are randomly murdered for no good reason. Many actually never get closed, meaning no one actually goes to jail or gets punished for their murder. These people actually don't receive justice, but obviously we can't live in a perfect society. You're oversimplifying a complex issue to accuse others of being heartless. It's the lazy moralizing of tyranny.