4 ms·

I think you can stay absolutist (albeit, being a bit cold about the situation). The principle of free speech is that it's paid for in blood because it's the lea

I think you can stay absolutist (albeit, being a bit cold about the situation). The principle of free speech is that it's paid for in blood because it's the least worst choice. Edit: I personally think the reasonable limit is calling for violence or organizing genocide. But those have never really been protected in common law.

not2b 6y ago
Easy for you to say, because you aren't a Rohingya and don't have to worry about people organizing your genocide on WhatsApp. We have to be able to criticize the government and debate polices, but when blood is involved (trying to get people killed) there has to be a line.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  If people are organizing your genocide on WhatsApp, WhatsApp is not the problem.
actuator 6y ago
But how do you reconcile with things like this. Free speech is better, but how much blood is worth it. Again, going with the current example. Indian subcontinent has had a tumultuous history mostly in the last millenium. It has been ravaged by conquests involving destruction of a lot of things that the pagan culture(now referred as a religion) held dear. Even though now the part of the subcontinent that is India now is majority that religion. There is resentment for/from every religion that came from outside. There are still unresolved things which can cause things to flare up easily. We have seen this flare up in US, say LA riots. Imagine a culture which has had issues about their identity and injustices in the past for far longer. Imagine people allowed to build narratives that incite violence freely and spread them like wildfire. It can turn deadly fast and has in the past.
- throwaway45349 6y ago
  Not easily, but I think it's the only reasonable stance. Anything else is too subjective and easily falls into slippery slope territory. Long term, I know harm will be minimised through free speech.
- krapp 6y ago
  > But how do you reconcile with things like this. Free speech is better, but how much blood is worth it. I mean, the only possible answer a free speech absolutist can honestly give is "as much as necessary." As with any absolutist position, one cannot permit valuing human life over the ideal. Once you do otherwise, you're a relativist, and the ideal is diminished. And let's be fair - even most self-described free speech absolutists are relativists at heart.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
I don't really want to go Godwin on you, but do you really think that you can justify allowing the demonization of (e.g.) Jewish people because the eventual genocide perpetrated against them is "the least worst choice"?
- throwaway45349 6y ago
  The words aren't the problem (unless it's a rally to violence), the action is. Any culture that can pivot to genocide from being exposed to the written word has bigger issues.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Issues that may be intimately and inextricably bound up with the "free" speech occuring within it, perhaps. You're also dramatically simplifying the processes that lead to things like Holocaust. The usual pathway involves several years (or more) of general speech-based demonization to soften up a population to the idea that the "other" is ... well, somewhat sub-human. The call to action comes much later, after you've sown the seeds necessary to have a significant population that says "yeah, well, i always did think there was something about those people ..."
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      Considering that the Holocaust was committed by a fascist regime where dissent and resistance was punished as treason, where an average citizen would be deathly afraid to question the regime even to their neighbors and children, it's quite a stretch for you to frame the Holocaust as a consequence of free speech. Eugenics support and anti-semitism had been present in public discussions across the world for decades and decades, but it didn't lead to the Holocaust until a charismatic politician swept into office by convincing the German people that his noble goals - the restoration of Germany - justified any means; absolute power, suppression of dissent, the permanent silence of many people, it's all worth it, all for the sake of a greater German society. That's how it starts. That's when the stupid and cruel thoughts in German citizens manifest into something destructive. Because these thoughts are no longer opinions, judgements are no longer subjective, disagreements no longer tolerable. Anyone who disagrees with the Nazi party is a traitor to his brethren. Anyone who supports the Jews is destroying the country. We're obviously right, they're obviously wrong, and we need an authority to stop them! They shouldn't be allowed to talk about P̶i̶z̶z̶a̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶Q̶A̶n̶o̶n̶ the Jewish agenda! The i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶n̶e̶t̶ printing press has made it possible for every individual to communicate with every other individual! The boring truth hasn’t even put on its shoes before sexy Jewish lies have made it halfway around the world and back. This is real, it is happening now and we are simply unprepared to deal with it! And boy, do we have a solution for you.

not2b 6y ago

Easy for you to say, because you aren't a Rohingya and don't have to worry about people organizing your genocide on WhatsApp. We have to be able to criticize the government and debate polices, but when blood is involved (trying to get people killed) there has to be a line.

themacguffinman 6y ago
If people are organizing your genocide on WhatsApp, WhatsApp is not the problem.

actuator 6y ago

But how do you reconcile with things like this. Free speech is better, but how much blood is worth it. Again, going with the current example. Indian subcontinent has had a tumultuous history mostly in the last millenium. It has been ravaged by conquests involving destruction of a lot of things that the pagan culture(now referred as a religion) held dear. Even though now the part of the subcontinent that is India now is majority that religion. There is resentment for/from every religion that came from outside. There are still unresolved things which can cause things to flare up easily. We have seen this flare up in US, say LA riots. Imagine a culture which has had issues about their identity and injustices in the past for far longer. Imagine people allowed to build narratives that incite violence freely and spread them like wildfire. It can turn deadly fast and has in the past.

throwaway45349 6y ago
Not easily, but I think it's the only reasonable stance. Anything else is too subjective and easily falls into slippery slope territory. Long term, I know harm will be minimised through free speech.
krapp 6y ago
> But how do you reconcile with things like this. Free speech is better, but how much blood is worth it. I mean, the only possible answer a free speech absolutist can honestly give is "as much as necessary." As with any absolutist position, one cannot permit valuing human life over the ideal. Once you do otherwise, you're a relativist, and the ideal is diminished. And let's be fair - even most self-described free speech absolutists are relativists at heart.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

I don't really want to go Godwin on you, but do you really think that you can justify allowing the demonization of (e.g.) Jewish people because the eventual genocide perpetrated against them is "the least worst choice"?

throwaway45349 6y ago
The words aren't the problem (unless it's a rally to violence), the action is. Any culture that can pivot to genocide from being exposed to the written word has bigger issues.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Issues that may be intimately and inextricably bound up with the "free" speech occuring within it, perhaps. You're also dramatically simplifying the processes that lead to things like Holocaust. The usual pathway involves several years (or more) of general speech-based demonization to soften up a population to the idea that the "other" is ... well, somewhat sub-human. The call to action comes much later, after you've sown the seeds necessary to have a significant population that says "yeah, well, i always did think there was something about those people ..."
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Considering that the Holocaust was committed by a fascist regime where dissent and resistance was punished as treason, where an average citizen would be deathly afraid to question the regime even to their neighbors and children, it's quite a stretch for you to frame the Holocaust as a consequence of free speech. Eugenics support and anti-semitism had been present in public discussions across the world for decades and decades, but it didn't lead to the Holocaust until a charismatic politician swept into office by convincing the German people that his noble goals - the restoration of Germany - justified any means; absolute power, suppression of dissent, the permanent silence of many people, it's all worth it, all for the sake of a greater German society. That's how it starts. That's when the stupid and cruel thoughts in German citizens manifest into something destructive. Because these thoughts are no longer opinions, judgements are no longer subjective, disagreements no longer tolerable. Anyone who disagrees with the Nazi party is a traitor to his brethren. Anyone who supports the Jews is destroying the country. We're obviously right, they're obviously wrong, and we need an authority to stop them! They shouldn't be allowed to talk about P̶i̶z̶z̶a̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶Q̶A̶n̶o̶n̶ the Jewish agenda! The i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶n̶e̶t̶ printing press has made it possible for every individual to communicate with every other individual! The boring truth hasn’t even put on its shoes before sexy Jewish lies have made it halfway around the world and back. This is real, it is happening now and we are simply unprepared to deal with it! And boy, do we have a solution for you.