3 ms·

>> 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 w

• 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."
    • kerkeslager 6y ago
      "Argument from metaphor" is a logical fallacy. Even if what you say about trees and fruit is true, it doesn't prove anything about people and words, because people aren't trees and words aren't fruit. People who say bad things aren't poisonous fruit trees. A poisonous fruit tree always produces the same fruit because genetics, but people can and do change their minds and say different things over time. And when you say you want to "cut down one big tree and replace it by several, smaller trees" I'm going to assume you aren't suggesting we start killing people, but I really don't know what you are suggesting. > 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." It's true that there's more than one free speech system, but let's be clear: any system which determines what people are allowed to say, or who is allowed to speak based on what they say, isn't a free speech system. The core problem is that if you start determining what people are allowed to say and what people aren't allowed to say, you have to put someone in charge of enforcing that. In the context of social media censorship, that's literally a proposal that we put amoral corporations in charge of what people are and aren't allowed to say. I don't trust Facebook with that power; I don't trust anyone with that power. In forums that I moderated back in the day, I didn't trust myself with that power. For example, let's talk about racist speech. I think we both agree that we don't want people to say racist things. But which of the following are racist statements? And how would you moderate them? 1. The Black Panthers are a militant black liberation group. 2. The New Black Panthers are a militant black liberation group. 3. Affirmative action is discriminatory. 4. Black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes. And more importantly, who would you trust to make the right choices in whether to censor these statements?