3 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

by 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.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > You're in favor of not passively allowing people to say things, I'm for passively allowing people to say things. You're misreading my position, and kinda missing the point I was trying to make to fixate on little part of the example I used. > 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. No, I'm not. I may have been doing a bad job, but the general idea I was trying to get at was that you can judge a tree by its fruit, and that bad (sometimes poison) fruit exists. If we find ourselves with trees that produce too much bad fruit, changes can and should be made to improve the situation, and that doesn't mean bad fruit will be banned entirely or only one kind will be allowed. Maybe you cut down one big tree and replace it by several, smaller trees, etc. But I think it's unreasonable to say that too much bad fruit (and a few poisonings) are just the cost of having fruit. There's not just one free speech system (i.e. people can have free speech in a society that allows megaphones, and in one that doesn't, but the results may be better or worse because of the difference), and I think it's a mistake to assume the costs of one system are the costs of "free speech."
- perl4ever 6y ago
  >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 dunno, I went to public schools...

by ardy42 6y ago

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.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > You're in favor of not passively allowing people to say things, I'm for passively allowing people to say things. You're misreading my position, and kinda missing the point I was trying to make to fixate on little part of the example I used. > 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. No, I'm not. I may have been doing a bad job, but the general idea I was trying to get at was that you can judge a tree by its fruit, and that bad (sometimes poison) fruit exists. If we find ourselves with trees that produce too much bad fruit, changes can and should be made to improve the situation, and that doesn't mean bad fruit will be banned entirely or only one kind will be allowed. Maybe you cut down one big tree and replace it by several, smaller trees, etc. But I think it's unreasonable to say that too much bad fruit (and a few poisonings) are just the cost of having fruit. There's not just one free speech system (i.e. people can have free speech in a society that allows megaphones, and in one that doesn't, but the results may be better or worse because of the difference), and I think it's a mistake to assume the costs of one system are the costs of "free speech."
perl4ever 6y ago
>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 dunno, I went to public schools...