3 ms·

Falsely calling people you don't like evil to cause them harm or for you own economic gain should result in jail time and compensation for the victim. As of no

Falsely calling people you don't like evil to cause them harm or for you own economic gain should result in jail time and compensation for the victim. As of now, we're so afraid of stopping people from coming forward that we've allowed those with evil intentions to weaponize our empathy.

karpierz 6y ago
> Falsely calling people you don't like evil to cause them harm or for you own economic gain should result in jail time and compensation for the victim. False speech isn't protected. Also, the parent comment made no claim that the statements made were true or false, just that there were accusation. I don't think that "people shouldn't knowingly lie" is a particularly hard stance on free speech.
- Proziam 6y ago
  > False speech isn't protected. It is to the extent that it isn't prosecuted as a matter of policy. > Also, the parent comment made no claim that the statements made were true or false, just that there were accusation And I'm saying "No, I think we ought to appropriately punish people who do make false claims" in response to the original question Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?
  - karpierz 6y ago
    If you want to have a separate conversation on whether false speech is prosecuted in the United States, we can do that. But this isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is how is "cancel culture" at odds with "free speech." > And I'm saying "No, I think we ought to appropriately punish people who do make false claims" in response to the original question "Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?" Okay, but then you aren't disagreeing with me; just posting a tangential point. In the example posted: > If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial? There's no indication that the claims are false, and if they are false, that the people making the claims aren't punished. All it asks is "is it okay to share information about an accusation, even if you aren't certain it's true?"
    - Proziam 6y ago
      > Okay, but then you aren't disagreeing with me I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I just think the issue is oversimplified into forum sized bites and needs to be approached holistically. > If you want to have a separate conversation on whether false speech is prosecuted in the United States, we can do that. But this isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is how is "cancel culture" at odds with "free speech." False speech being 'protected' in the sense that it doesn't result in any harm to person committing the act is, in my opinion, extremely relevant. Free speech isn't free if those who would cause you harm are free to do so at the slightest provocation, and without fear of punishment. > All it asks is "is it okay to share information about an accusation, even if you aren't certain it's true?" My answer is "Yes, if you're willing to accept an appropriate punishment for libel/slander/defamation in the event you were wrong." One added thought though, what if the person accused can no longer afford a decent lawyer because they got canceled? That could result in catastrophic harm to an innocent person, just like the [0]4% of death row inmates that are supposedly innocent. [0] https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230 https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230
      - karpierz 6y ago
        > Free speech isn't free if those who would cause you harm are free to do so at the slightest provocation, and without fear of punishment. It seems like what you're going for is that freedom of speech requires responsibility for consequences of speech, which I'm all for. I'm more worried about understanding how far those consequences stretch; if you share an article about race statistics that prompts a riot, are you responsible? > My answer is "Yes, if you're willing to accept an appropriate punishment for libel/slander/defamation in the event you were wrong." Do you believe that if someone unknowingly published something that turns out to be false, they should be held legally liable for it? For example, if I share a news article that turns out to be false, I should bear liability? > One added thought though, what if the person accused can no longer afford a decent lawyer because they got canceled? That could result in catastrophic harm to an innocent person, just like the [0]4% of death row inmates that are supposedly innocent. That would be a causality of free speech. At some point, some group of people are going to be hurt by speech or lack thereof, and it's more a matter of deciding what tradeoffs we'll make.

karpierz 6y ago

> Falsely calling people you don't like evil to cause them harm or for you own economic gain should result in jail time and compensation for the victim. False speech isn't protected. Also, the parent comment made no claim that the statements made were true or false, just that there were accusation. I don't think that "people shouldn't knowingly lie" is a particularly hard stance on free speech.

Proziam 6y ago
> False speech isn't protected. It is to the extent that it isn't prosecuted as a matter of policy. > Also, the parent comment made no claim that the statements made were true or false, just that there were accusation And I'm saying "No, I think we ought to appropriately punish people who do make false claims" in response to the original question Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?
- karpierz 6y ago
  If you want to have a separate conversation on whether false speech is prosecuted in the United States, we can do that. But this isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is how is "cancel culture" at odds with "free speech." > And I'm saying "No, I think we ought to appropriately punish people who do make false claims" in response to the original question "Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?" Okay, but then you aren't disagreeing with me; just posting a tangential point. In the example posted: > If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial? There's no indication that the claims are false, and if they are false, that the people making the claims aren't punished. All it asks is "is it okay to share information about an accusation, even if you aren't certain it's true?"
  - Proziam 6y ago
    > Okay, but then you aren't disagreeing with me I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I just think the issue is oversimplified into forum sized bites and needs to be approached holistically. > If you want to have a separate conversation on whether false speech is prosecuted in the United States, we can do that. But this isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is how is "cancel culture" at odds with "free speech." False speech being 'protected' in the sense that it doesn't result in any harm to person committing the act is, in my opinion, extremely relevant. Free speech isn't free if those who would cause you harm are free to do so at the slightest provocation, and without fear of punishment. > All it asks is "is it okay to share information about an accusation, even if you aren't certain it's true?" My answer is "Yes, if you're willing to accept an appropriate punishment for libel/slander/defamation in the event you were wrong." One added thought though, what if the person accused can no longer afford a decent lawyer because they got canceled? That could result in catastrophic harm to an innocent person, just like the [0]4% of death row inmates that are supposedly innocent. [0] https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230 https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230
    - karpierz 6y ago
      > Free speech isn't free if those who would cause you harm are free to do so at the slightest provocation, and without fear of punishment. It seems like what you're going for is that freedom of speech requires responsibility for consequences of speech, which I'm all for. I'm more worried about understanding how far those consequences stretch; if you share an article about race statistics that prompts a riot, are you responsible? > My answer is "Yes, if you're willing to accept an appropriate punishment for libel/slander/defamation in the event you were wrong." Do you believe that if someone unknowingly published something that turns out to be false, they should be held legally liable for it? For example, if I share a news article that turns out to be false, I should bear liability? > One added thought though, what if the person accused can no longer afford a decent lawyer because they got canceled? That could result in catastrophic harm to an innocent person, just like the [0]4% of death row inmates that are supposedly innocent. That would be a causality of free speech. At some point, some group of people are going to be hurt by speech or lack thereof, and it's more a matter of deciding what tradeoffs we'll make.