4 ms·

> And you're proposing giving a corruptible institution vast new powers to control public dialogue. And you're continuing to argue as though the vast already t

> And you're proposing giving a corruptible institution vast new powers to control public dialogue. And you're continuing to argue as though the vast already thoroughly corrupted institution already doing that is somehow better. > Libel and incitement are very narrowly defined, and proving either is incredibly difficult. No shit. I'm saying exactly that laws to police speech can be done right. It should be a sizable burden of proof needed, it should be difficult specifically so that the Government can't simply say "that's bad, stop saying it." That's my whole damn point. > I can predict with 99% confidence Is this prediction based on something besides your own biases? > I'm just very surprised by how many Americans have decided after Trump's election that the First Amendment has to go. It's very short-sighted. I said no such thing. Please read my posts if you intend to respond to them.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
> And you're continuing to argue as though the vast already thoroughly corrupted institution already doing that is somehow better. No, I'm arguing that that institution should not be given vast new powers to determine what can and cannot be said, based on what it deems to be true and false. > I'm saying exactly that laws to police speech can be done right. The right way to do it is to not give the government the power to censore "untrue" speech in the first place. What you're proposing is incredibly dangerous, and would be a clear break with the 1st Amendment - the bedrock of American democracy. > Is this prediction based on something besides your own biases? It's based on a simple analysis of what would serve the interests of those who wield great influence in government. Since November 2016, I've heard lots of liberals argue for censorship of "untrue" or far-right speech. They seem to imagine that they can create a system in which they will determine what is true or acceptable, and that those definitions will be imposed on the "bad guys." I think that's incredibly naive. Lots of conservatives call Black Lives Matter "hate speech" and the like. If you give them a tool to suppress speech, they'll turn it against BLM and other causes they dislike. > I said no such thing. Please read my posts if you intend to respond to them. You're arguing against the 1st Amendment. You want to impose an official government standard of what is true and false, which can be used to muzzle speech. I get that you want this standard to be objective, but the obvious direction that such laws will go is towards wide-ranging political censorship. The 1st Amendment is central to American democracy, and one shouldn't play around with it. Leave it alone. You can't ban people you think are wrong from speaking. Try arguing against them, convincing them.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

> And you're continuing to argue as though the vast already thoroughly corrupted institution already doing that is somehow better. No, I'm arguing that that institution should not be given vast new powers to determine what can and cannot be said, based on what it deems to be true and false. > I'm saying exactly that laws to police speech can be done right. The right way to do it is to not give the government the power to censore "untrue" speech in the first place. What you're proposing is incredibly dangerous, and would be a clear break with the 1st Amendment - the bedrock of American democracy. > Is this prediction based on something besides your own biases? It's based on a simple analysis of what would serve the interests of those who wield great influence in government. Since November 2016, I've heard lots of liberals argue for censorship of "untrue" or far-right speech. They seem to imagine that they can create a system in which they will determine what is true or acceptable, and that those definitions will be imposed on the "bad guys." I think that's incredibly naive. Lots of conservatives call Black Lives Matter "hate speech" and the like. If you give them a tool to suppress speech, they'll turn it against BLM and other causes they dislike. > I said no such thing. Please read my posts if you intend to respond to them. You're arguing against the 1st Amendment. You want to impose an official government standard of what is true and false, which can be used to muzzle speech. I get that you want this standard to be objective, but the obvious direction that such laws will go is towards wide-ranging political censorship. The 1st Amendment is central to American democracy, and one shouldn't play around with it. Leave it alone. You can't ban people you think are wrong from speaking. Try arguing against them, convincing them.