4 ms·

Maybe the authors think that misinformation is currently a bigger issue than censorship?

goalieca 6y ago
Where to draw the line between misinformation and the government approved version of the truth. The facts of any matter are not always so simple and lies by omission can be as misleading as any falsehood. Our justice system tries to resolve this through an adversarial system. It’s not perfect but I can’t imagine allowing any single entity to determine what the truth is.
- yokaze 6y ago
  How about drawing the line at the government? My understanding is though, that this is a bit of a straw-mans argument. There is no credible proposal to only allow the government approved version of truth. I thought the marketplace of ideas was a popular concept in the US.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    you are misinformed: "But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?" -Richard Stengel, Biden Transition Team Member
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      How does that at all rebut what the person you're responding to has said? I've read your quote multiple times trying to see how it at all presents a "credible proposal to only allow the government approved version of truth."
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        its a government official speaking about the dangers of unfettered free speech. I'm genuinely at a loss as to what you want me to offer. perhaps if you explained it to me as though I was a small child.
        Jtsummers 6y ago
        > perhaps if you explained it to me as though I was a small child. Unless you are a small child or truly have the mentality of what, I will not speak down to you like that. I will repeat your quote though: > "But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?" -Richard Stengel, Biden Transition Team Member That quote is clearly an observation, not a call to action in itself. It is an observation that the US's notion of free speech is not at all universal, and can be confounding even to people with some quality ("sophistication", perhaps "worldliness" or other terms would be more helpful descriptors) that the author wouldn't expect it to confound. You're claiming that it's some kind of call to action against "unfettered free speech" (which we already don't have in the US anyways). Present an actual argument instead of taking a quote (properly attributed but sans context) and jump to conclusions that aren't in it. How hard is that to do? Learn how to construct and present arguments in ways that actually have a chance to persuade instead of making statements that verge on non sequiturs. Here, I'll help you: Link to the actual opinion piece [0]. It's clear from that that he's arguing in favor of hate speech laws (which is a slippery slope, I'm pretty sure a few "Christians" I know would like hate speech laws so they could stop me from calling them anti-Christians), and thinks there's already precedent for such laws. > The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites “imminent lawless action” or is likely to do so can be restricted. You didn't present that part though, I only stumbled on it because someone else linked to it in this thread. TL;DR: You are terrible at argumentation. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-ameri...

Where to draw the line between misinformation and the government approved version of the truth. The facts of any matter are not always so simple and lies by omission can be as misleading as any falsehood. Our justice system tries to resolve this through an adversarial system. It’s not perfect but I can’t imagine allowing any single entity to determine what the truth is.

yokaze 6y ago
How about drawing the line at the government? My understanding is though, that this is a bit of a straw-mans argument. There is no credible proposal to only allow the government approved version of truth. I thought the marketplace of ideas was a popular concept in the US.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  you are misinformed: "But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?" -Richard Stengel, Biden Transition Team Member
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    How does that at all rebut what the person you're responding to has said? I've read your quote multiple times trying to see how it at all presents a "credible proposal to only allow the government approved version of truth."
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      its a government official speaking about the dangers of unfettered free speech. I'm genuinely at a loss as to what you want me to offer. perhaps if you explained it to me as though I was a small child.
      - Jtsummers 6y ago
        > perhaps if you explained it to me as though I was a small child. Unless you are a small child or truly have the mentality of what, I will not speak down to you like that. I will repeat your quote though: > "But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?" -Richard Stengel, Biden Transition Team Member That quote is clearly an observation, not a call to action in itself. It is an observation that the US's notion of free speech is not at all universal, and can be confounding even to people with some quality ("sophistication", perhaps "worldliness" or other terms would be more helpful descriptors) that the author wouldn't expect it to confound. You're claiming that it's some kind of call to action against "unfettered free speech" (which we already don't have in the US anyways). Present an actual argument instead of taking a quote (properly attributed but sans context) and jump to conclusions that aren't in it. How hard is that to do? Learn how to construct and present arguments in ways that actually have a chance to persuade instead of making statements that verge on non sequiturs. Here, I'll help you: Link to the actual opinion piece [0]. It's clear from that that he's arguing in favor of hate speech laws (which is a slippery slope, I'm pretty sure a few "Christians" I know would like hate speech laws so they could stop me from calling them anti-Christians), and thinks there's already precedent for such laws. > The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites “imminent lawless action” or is likely to do so can be restricted. You didn't present that part though, I only stumbled on it because someone else linked to it in this thread. TL;DR: You are terrible at argumentation. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-ameri...