5 ms·

I think this is part of the answer to free speech absolutists. Even someone who isn't ideologically bought into this stuff is traumatized and damaged simply by

I think this is part of the answer to free speech absolutists. Even someone who isn't ideologically bought into this stuff is traumatized and damaged simply by exposure as a researcher. It is not possible to treat this content, even the textual hate screed rather than graphic form, as part of "the marketplace of ideas". It has effects.

lm28469 7y ago
> I think this is part of the answer to free speech absolutists. You can't argue with them, they'll say "don't like it, don't watch it".
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  It's the people who do like it that I worry about.
Kaiyou 7y ago
Everything has cause and effect. What's your point, that we should police the content adults are allowed to watch? Call the police on people watching 2girls1cup?
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
We're not gonna throw out one of the core tenants of modern democracy because some people get sick if they get too much exposure to it.
Hitton 7y ago
The problem is that pretty much anything can have effect. With your approach you would have to ban everything to the level of people with lowest resistance. First you ban torture videos, then murder videos, then animal slaughter, then violent porn, then violent video games, then violent movies, then all movies where gun is shot (see shooting ar-15 gave me ptsd) and you have banned all action movies. And you still can't be sure if there isn't anything even more benign which would have "an effect" on someone.
Nasrudith 7y ago
You had the impression that free speech arguements were based upon speech not having an impact? Funny the whole reason why speech is protected is because it /does/ have an impact. If it didn't spending any time on it would be irrational as declaring a need for underwear color regulation. The point of free speech is that we cannot trust the would be regulators not to abuse things to make their own ladder to power, that peaceful transitions of power end better than violent ones, and those who make peaceful change impossible are faced with violent ones.

lm28469 7y ago

> I think this is part of the answer to free speech absolutists. You can't argue with them, they'll say "don't like it, don't watch it".

JulianMorrison 7y ago
It's the people who do like it that I worry about.

Kaiyou 7y ago

Everything has cause and effect. What's your point, that we should police the content adults are allowed to watch? Call the police on people watching 2girls1cup?

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

We're not gonna throw out one of the core tenants of modern democracy because some people get sick if they get too much exposure to it.

Hitton 7y ago

The problem is that pretty much anything can have effect. With your approach you would have to ban everything to the level of people with lowest resistance. First you ban torture videos, then murder videos, then animal slaughter, then violent porn, then violent video games, then violent movies, then all movies where gun is shot (see shooting ar-15 gave me ptsd) and you have banned all action movies. And you still can't be sure if there isn't anything even more benign which would have "an effect" on someone.

Nasrudith 7y ago

You had the impression that free speech arguements were based upon speech not having an impact? Funny the whole reason why speech is protected is because it /does/ have an impact. If it didn't spending any time on it would be irrational as declaring a need for underwear color regulation. The point of free speech is that we cannot trust the would be regulators not to abuse things to make their own ladder to power, that peaceful transitions of power end better than violent ones, and those who make peaceful change impossible are faced with violent ones.