3 ms·

I'm not in favor of unlimited free speech. I'm in favor of limiting speech that is intended to harm, knowingly mislead, or spread hate.

ufmace 6y ago
And who decides what speech meets that standard? Have you read the other posts in this thread? The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative.
- grumple 6y ago
  > The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. Has it? It's remained stable as far as I can tell; maintain distance from others, minimize interactions with others. There has been some evolution in disease treatment, but it has been a rather measured evolution. > It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative. This is a bit unfair. I'm in favor of censoring speech that demonstrably causes harm. This is done in many nations where they are arguably more free than the US despite our age-old slogan from the early 1800s which implies we're unique in having demoratic freedoms (namely European nations). There does not seem to be a significant propaganda effect or unwarranted censorship in those nations - in fact, quite the opposite, as they appear to be better educated and better informed than Americans. Perhaps in the past, America's version of free speech guaranteed liberty; but now it's just as often used (if not more, in our media) to cause harm - anti-vax, hate speech of all sorts, anti-mask, advocating taking hydroxychloroquine without supportive medical evidence or examination, general misleading of the American public.

3 ms·

I'm not in favor of unlimited free speech. I'm in favor of limiting speech that is intended to harm, knowingly mislead, or spread hate.

by grumple 6y ago

ufmace 6y ago
And who decides what speech meets that standard? Have you read the other posts in this thread? The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative.
- grumple 6y ago
  > The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. Has it? It's remained stable as far as I can tell; maintain distance from others, minimize interactions with others. There has been some evolution in disease treatment, but it has been a rather measured evolution. > It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative. This is a bit unfair. I'm in favor of censoring speech that demonstrably causes harm. This is done in many nations where they are arguably more free than the US despite our age-old slogan from the early 1800s which implies we're unique in having demoratic freedoms (namely European nations). There does not seem to be a significant propaganda effect or unwarranted censorship in those nations - in fact, quite the opposite, as they appear to be better educated and better informed than Americans. Perhaps in the past, America's version of free speech guaranteed liberty; but now it's just as often used (if not more, in our media) to cause harm - anti-vax, hate speech of all sorts, anti-mask, advocating taking hydroxychloroquine without supportive medical evidence or examination, general misleading of the American public.