4 ms·
Exactly. This is not a binary choice between free speech and no free speech. It is a debate over where to place the line. We have plenty of speech that alrea
by slg 6y ago
Exactly. This is not a binary choice between free speech and no free speech. It is a debate over where to place the line. We have plenty of speech that already falls on the illegal side of the line such as threats or libel. Some people want to move the line so a few more things are on the illegal side. Free speech absolutists aren't making a fair argument when they respond to that good faith request with "any change means the end of free speech".
- refurb 6y agoThe line is much less arbitrary when you make it “speech that clearly violates criminal law” versus “speech that I disagree with”. When the govt starts talking about “speech to foments discord” that’s a hell of a slippery slope.
- UncleMeat 6y agoBut "violates criminal law" is a statement about the population's beliefs. We pick what is illegal. It isn't some fundamental thing. In Germany, for example, holocaust denial is literally illegal.
- refurb 6y agoRight, but the criminal law falls outside of purely speech. That's the line drawn at least in the US - you can say whatever you want, but if you start inciting crime, that's a problem. In Germany, the line is drawn much further back. It doesn't matter if what you say incites crime, the speech in and of itself is illegal.