3 ms·
You might have good intentions here, but you also have a setup for a motte-and-bailey argument. It starts with "surely the enforcement would be benign" but who
by humanrebar 6y ago
You might have good intentions here, but you also have a setup for a motte-and-bailey argument. It starts with "surely the enforcement would be benign" but who holds the powerful to account when it actually comes time to reign the powerful in?
Maybe they'll merely be blacklisted from lucrative or prestigious positions in government or industry?
- dagmx 6y agoSurely the same could be said for your argument though where you're taking it to an authoritarian extreme? The opposite of free speech isn't regulated speech for everyone like a distopian future. It could be as simple as requirements for more transparency in certain types of speech like political ads and what qualifies as news versus opinion. One of the major points of the article is that the spirit of free speech has been corrupted because it has allowed it to be coopted by political and corporate parties that can drown out the voices of the people with no trail back to who's presenting the version of reality to you. We can regulate categories of media separately of individual rights. Many countries do this successfully without being authoritarian regimes