4 ms·

Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's b

Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny.

Barrin92 6y ago
That's an entirely different argument altogether. Of course one is free to tolerate harm or accept danger in exchange for freedom, but that doesn't imply that ideas or speech cannot be dangerous, or that platforms that mediate speech don't change or weaponise discourse in certain ways, many of which are harmful. And it should be pointed out that most societies don't agree with this at all, and as is becoming more evident, neither does the American society in general. In this era of modern mass communication there hasn't been any social consensus on the nature or acceptance of speech, it's a purely inherited position, ironically enough.
nogabebop23 6y ago
>> Freedom isn't free. that's true. There's a hefty f'in fee. Everyone has to chip in their buck-o-five
ardy42 6y ago
> Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny. That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. Real free speech involves identifying the sources of lies and falsehoods and working to eliminate or minimize their effects.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > > Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny. > That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? I've italicized the differences. You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >> That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. > You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man. Yes I am. If we're "free speech extremists" who believe "freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of 'fake news' or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny." Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech rights of a conspiracy theorist teacher? Shouldn't we rely on the students' critical thinking and willingly pay the price if it turns out to be inadequate? > Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean society can't recognize conspiracy theories are detrimental and take action to retard their spread (such as the government firing a conspiracy theorist teacher or taking antitrust action against social media platforms). Free speech doesn't mean a particular amplification mechanism has to exist and be tolerated.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      > Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech rights of a conspiracy theorist teacher? We shouldn't. They're welcome to say whatever they want. We're not obligated, however, to pay them to say it. Free speech never obligates anyone to do anything. It merely obligates us to not do one thing: prevent others from saying things. > > Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? > Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean the government cannot change laws and practices that make that too easy. No, that's not the difference, and no, you weren't alluding to anything I said. In one case you're passively allowing them to say what they want. In the other case you're actively paying the to say what they want. You're in favor of not passively allowing people to say things, I'm for passively allowing people to say things. But you're pretending that free speech advocates should be for actively paying people to teach conspiracy theories, so you can make their view look stupid, when in fact that's never what free speech advocates were for.

Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny.

Barrin92 6y ago

That's an entirely different argument altogether. Of course one is free to tolerate harm or accept danger in exchange for freedom, but that doesn't imply that ideas or speech cannot be dangerous, or that platforms that mediate speech don't change or weaponise discourse in certain ways, many of which are harmful. And it should be pointed out that most societies don't agree with this at all, and as is becoming more evident, neither does the American society in general. In this era of modern mass communication there hasn't been any social consensus on the nature or acceptance of speech, it's a purely inherited position, ironically enough.

nogabebop23 6y ago

>> Freedom isn't free. that's true. There's a hefty f'in fee. Everyone has to chip in their buck-o-five

ardy42 6y ago

> Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny. That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. Real free speech involves identifying the sources of lies and falsehoods and working to eliminate or minimize their effects.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> > Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny. > That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? I've italicized the differences. You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school. > You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man. Yes I am. If we're "free speech extremists" who believe "freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of 'fake news' or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny." Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech rights of a conspiracy theorist teacher? Shouldn't we rely on the students' critical thinking and willingly pay the price if it turns out to be inadequate? > Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean society can't recognize conspiracy theories are detrimental and take action to retard their spread (such as the government firing a conspiracy theorist teacher or taking antitrust action against social media platforms). Free speech doesn't mean a particular amplification mechanism has to exist and be tolerated.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech rights of a conspiracy theorist teacher? We shouldn't. They're welcome to say whatever they want. We're not obligated, however, to pay them to say it. Free speech never obligates anyone to do anything. It merely obligates us to not do one thing: prevent others from saying things. > > Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? > Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean the government cannot change laws and practices that make that too easy. No, that's not the difference, and no, you weren't alluding to anything I said. In one case you're passively allowing them to say what they want. In the other case you're actively paying the to say what they want. You're in favor of not passively allowing people to say things, I'm for passively allowing people to say things. But you're pretending that free speech advocates should be for actively paying people to teach conspiracy theories, so you can make their view look stupid, when in fact that's never what free speech advocates were for.