4 ms·

I disagree, since I think all speech* is equally protected speech, including a crude slur. The reason for that is because it is far too easy for the powers that

I disagree, since I think all speech* is equally protected speech, including a crude slur. The reason for that is because it is far too easy for the powers that be to use claims of "only cleaning out the trash" to censor legitimate thoughts and expressions. Throughout history humans have proven incapable of making the right call on where to draw that line, so the only option is to draw it at all. To refute your points: the owner of the platform has all the power in this relationship, since there are essentially zero repercussions for them over-censoring discussions. Most of the users of a platform won't know, won't care, or will accept the "just censoring the evil speech" argument. The audience itself is also not infallible, since there is a such thing as the tyranny of the majority. *: of course, there is the point where speech itself requires harming another to create, such as child pornography or snuff films. But that is not what is at issue here or anywhere in modern discourse.

exo-pla-net 6y ago
You posit a false dilemma: * Accept suppression of intelligent dissent. * Allow all speech, including unintelligent and hateful speech. This is evidently false, given: 1) Intelligent, well-reasoned dissent against a platform is permitted on virtually all large platforms on the internet, and this has been the case for decades. 2) Virtually all large platforms censor unintelligent, hateful speech. Your nightmare scenario of intelligent speech disappearing due to censorship of small-minded vulgarity simply hasn't happened. Quite the opposite, intelligent speech does disappear when small-minded vulgarity isn't censored. See voat or 4chan or the thousands of other poorly censored, poorly moderated places on the internet. Productive, intelligent communication does not happen in public forums without censorship. Concerning what-ifs and slippery slopes, call me when someone with a well-reasoned argument is being suppressed by a large platform. All I've ever seen is hate and misinformation being pushed down the drain, and good riddance. Censoring kids spamming "communist bandit" isn't a problem, not in this universe. Censoring a professor critiquing communism as a viable form of government would be a problem, but that's neither here nor there. Meanwhile, legitimate problems in the free speech domain are draconian copyright laws, suppressing science and creativity, and espionage laws, suppressing whistleblowers such as Snowden. If we've decided that free speech shall be our crusade, and we're in the US, our limited time and resources should be focused on these real, ongoing, and broad-reaching problems.
- jakebasile 6y ago
  So-called "unintelligent" speech is still speech, and therefore should be protected. "Unintelligent" people have the same human rights as anyone else.

exo-pla-net 6y ago

You posit a false dilemma: * Accept suppression of intelligent dissent. * Allow all speech, including unintelligent and hateful speech. This is evidently false, given: 1) Intelligent, well-reasoned dissent against a platform is permitted on virtually all large platforms on the internet, and this has been the case for decades. 2) Virtually all large platforms censor unintelligent, hateful speech. Your nightmare scenario of intelligent speech disappearing due to censorship of small-minded vulgarity simply hasn't happened. Quite the opposite, intelligent speech does disappear when small-minded vulgarity isn't censored. See voat or 4chan or the thousands of other poorly censored, poorly moderated places on the internet. Productive, intelligent communication does not happen in public forums without censorship. Concerning what-ifs and slippery slopes, call me when someone with a well-reasoned argument is being suppressed by a large platform. All I've ever seen is hate and misinformation being pushed down the drain, and good riddance. Censoring kids spamming "communist bandit" isn't a problem, not in this universe. Censoring a professor critiquing communism as a viable form of government would be a problem, but that's neither here nor there. Meanwhile, legitimate problems in the free speech domain are draconian copyright laws, suppressing science and creativity, and espionage laws, suppressing whistleblowers such as Snowden. If we've decided that free speech shall be our crusade, and we're in the US, our limited time and resources should be focused on these real, ongoing, and broad-reaching problems.

jakebasile 6y ago
So-called "unintelligent" speech is still speech, and therefore should be protected. "Unintelligent" people have the same human rights as anyone else.