4 ms·

You could have applied those arguments to all social progressive movements of the 20th century. Gay rights? Those were considered fundamentally abhorrent perver

You could have applied those arguments to all social progressive movements of the 20th century. Gay rights? Those were considered fundamentally abhorrent perversions, suitable for prison & physical elimination. The 'welfare of society'? We define that as much after the fact as anything else. At one point, that was down to censoring anti-slavery positions. How can you possibly consistently make that determination without censoring, at various points, everything good we've worked for? If you're pro abortion, are you 'converting to the cause' of nihilistic extremism, or are you making reasonable arguments? Who determines that, government censors? Private corporations with effective monopolies on communication channels? That only sounds good if they're run by the people you agree with. They will not always be run by people you agree with.

floatingatoll 6y ago
It’s always possible to make an incorrect decision in service of the greater good, but that’s no excuse to give up concern for the greater good forever. Your argument also neatly contradicts personal gun ownership: “Someone was shot yesterday by their neighbor during an argument, so we should ban individual possession of weapons since guns have been used to enforce disagreeable opinions on others.”
- legolas2412 6y ago
  Not the poster, but you can see why gun violence is different. Free speech is different from material harm to others. Also, you can keep pursuing greater good by education and protection of human rights. No need to sacrifice free speech.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    > Free speech is different from material harm to others. This is not a universally agreed-upon belief, and is specifically a belief I disagree with. Free speech is just as sharp a blade as any other weapon. We seem to think that weapons can be carried safely because human beings will use good judgement about when to use them. I hold the same belief about speech: it is dangerous when wielded incorrectly, and societies are uniquely vulnerable to it above all other weapons. It's no more appropriate to me to allow wholly unrestricted use of speech than it is to allow wholly unrestricted use of weapons. Most arguments for 'free speech' try to avoid the ethical debate about where the line between 'freedom to say anything' and 'harm to the greater good' is. I consider that line the most critical debate of all. Arguing that speech must never be restricted is just as extremist a view as arguing that speech must always be restricted. I much prefer the position "speech generally doesn't need to be restricted, but I'll make an exception in cases of significant risk/harm to societies".
- giantDinosaur 6y ago
  The 'greater good' doesn't exist outside of what we say. If we're forbidden from expressing our views on what it should actually be, if you can't find others who express the same views, how is that not equally serving whoever is in power and simply disagrees with what you think is right? The 'greater good' seems far better served by designing platforms to encourage healthy debate rather than playing whack-a-mole with whatever the issue du jour happens to be. For the same reasons we tend to not ban political parties, and hopefully recognise that it's better simply to design superior systems - e.g. not using first past the post or having an independent electoral commission. Censoring to act in the 'greater good' is foolish hubris that can only end badly for those it purports to help the most. And, crucially, when it does start to harm you, how will you speak out about it?

floatingatoll 6y ago

It’s always possible to make an incorrect decision in service of the greater good, but that’s no excuse to give up concern for the greater good forever. Your argument also neatly contradicts personal gun ownership: “Someone was shot yesterday by their neighbor during an argument, so we should ban individual possession of weapons since guns have been used to enforce disagreeable opinions on others.”

legolas2412 6y ago
Not the poster, but you can see why gun violence is different. Free speech is different from material harm to others. Also, you can keep pursuing greater good by education and protection of human rights. No need to sacrifice free speech.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  > Free speech is different from material harm to others. This is not a universally agreed-upon belief, and is specifically a belief I disagree with. Free speech is just as sharp a blade as any other weapon. We seem to think that weapons can be carried safely because human beings will use good judgement about when to use them. I hold the same belief about speech: it is dangerous when wielded incorrectly, and societies are uniquely vulnerable to it above all other weapons. It's no more appropriate to me to allow wholly unrestricted use of speech than it is to allow wholly unrestricted use of weapons. Most arguments for 'free speech' try to avoid the ethical debate about where the line between 'freedom to say anything' and 'harm to the greater good' is. I consider that line the most critical debate of all. Arguing that speech must never be restricted is just as extremist a view as arguing that speech must always be restricted. I much prefer the position "speech generally doesn't need to be restricted, but I'll make an exception in cases of significant risk/harm to societies".
giantDinosaur 6y ago
The 'greater good' doesn't exist outside of what we say. If we're forbidden from expressing our views on what it should actually be, if you can't find others who express the same views, how is that not equally serving whoever is in power and simply disagrees with what you think is right? The 'greater good' seems far better served by designing platforms to encourage healthy debate rather than playing whack-a-mole with whatever the issue du jour happens to be. For the same reasons we tend to not ban political parties, and hopefully recognise that it's better simply to design superior systems - e.g. not using first past the post or having an independent electoral commission. Censoring to act in the 'greater good' is foolish hubris that can only end badly for those it purports to help the most. And, crucially, when it does start to harm you, how will you speak out about it?