12 ms·

To me, the case for free speech has never looked as good. A few (even hundreds) of murders are an acceptable cost of free speech. Restricted speech has killed m

by lldbg 6y ago

To me, the case for free speech has never looked as good. A few (even hundreds) of murders are an acceptable cost of free speech. Restricted speech has killed millions. Little by little the western freedoms are being taken away. And you want it to go faster? Rap music which idolizes violence is allowed, despite thousands dying every year in connection to crimimal enterprise. The case to ban rap is just as naive as the case against free speech.

anovikov 6y ago
The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Which is not to say i am against 2nd Amendment, just that the situation changed and concern of many people are understandable. Same is free speech: when actually exercising this right was about printing books of pamphlets that meant a certain level of financial and intellectual barrier to it, free speech was clearly all benefits and no risks. Now that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook - and with well, intellectual majority driving the views and rankings of them so smart content ends up unnoticed coz it's so nerdy - people are right to be concerned.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Where can you buy assault rifles?
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    At the local "gun show." It's advertised on billboards all along the highway. No background check required!
    - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      Fully automatic military assault weapons? I don't think so.
      - BrianOnHN 6y ago
        Welcome to FL USA
        blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        Where in FL USA can one legally purchase fully automatic weapons without a special federal permit?
        sneak 6y ago
        Just about any federal dealer. There is no permit required to purchase fully automatic weapons in the United States; you just have to pay a transfer tax. Unfortunately processing the tax payment takes about a year, in their effort to turn it into a form of permit, but that's not what it is. Anyone (without criminal background) can pay the tax and buy one. There is a ban on the import and manufacture of new ones (for civilian use) in place since 1986, so the ones available for purchase (by anyone, again, no "special federal permit" required) cost about 10-20x more than they would cost otherwise, which effectively restricts them to "rich people only". They're freely available, though.
        blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        You have to pay $200 and send an application to the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms. It takes 8 months to a year; they will do a background investigation and send you an approval form if you pass. Then you can purchase the (used) machine gun. Fully automatic weapons are not currently manufactured in the U.S. Florida, in particular, has banned machine guns like the AK-47 which is to say weapons that fire multiple bullets with one pull of the trigger. Semi-autos are the dominant technology in firearms; when a bullet is fired, the energy released forces a fresh bullet into the chamber, ready to fire but you must pull the trigger again. This is known as "semi-automatic" and is legal everywhere, for now.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    Some US states allow civilian ownership of automatic rifles, although it's typically a lot of hassle and expense with licensing and taxes.
  - dTal 6y ago
    In 43 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in...
    - karaterobot 6y ago
      The person you're responding to asked about assault rifles, and you responded with a link about assault weapons. They're very different things, and this has led to a lot of confusion. Generally, when people talk about "assault weapons" they're actually thinking of automatic, military-style weapons with large magazines. Those are "assault rifles", which have been legislated at the federal level for a long time. The laws are indeed complicated, but in general these weapons are hard to get legally. Here's an decent explainer: https://www.ajc.com/news/national/assault-weapon-assault-rifle-what-the-difference/LPXLAj8ZcHkPn2rLn3bOGK/ https://www.ajc.com/news/national/assault-weapon-assault-rif...
  - refurb 6y ago
    What’s an assault rifle? A normal rifle with features that scared people but have no impact on the actual lethality?
    - jordanbeiber 6y ago
      A specific compact form-factor and multiple rounds in a magazine that allow for more rapid fire than a bolt action rifle? I know people claim "hunting" with these rifles, but I think there's a shiny toy thing at play more than utility.
      - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        No, you're describing a semi-automatic weapon, which requires a separate trigger pull for each shot. Fully automatic allows multiple shots with one pull of the trigger.
        detaro 6y ago
        I don't see how this addresses anything in the parent comment? Are you trying to say they can't define assault weapons as including semi-automatics?
        blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        Yes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons which are the majority of firearms manufactured and sold today in the U.S. The anti-gun lobby has conflated the terms to push a blanket ban on anything that looks remotely military. But functionally, it's two separate categories and fully automatic weapons require a federal permit that takes about a year.
        detaro 6y ago
        If you think that's the definition, why not clearly say that instead of playing this "let others guess what your definition is" game? > Yes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons What's the clear legal definition of an assault weapon? E.g. as referenced elsewhere in the comments here, the federal assault weapons ban clearly talked about "semi-automatic assault weapons", suggesting the legal definition was not so clearly "only full-automatics"?
- kiba 6y ago
  The problem is with facebook making a post viral. Anyone can post anything online, but it won't do any good or bad if nobody reads it.
- lldbg 6y ago
  So free speech was good, when it was restricted to the elite (those of means and intellect). Now that the unwashed masses, the plebs, have access to it, it's no longer good?
  - anovikov 6y ago
    Exactly! And so was the democracy itself (in Washington's times, only 3% of people could vote and it was great, in Andrew Jackson's, 15%, and it was still sort of OK, but anything more was a disaster waiting to happen)
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Now that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook... people are right to be concerned. People always had the right and capacity to make conspiracy theories. They deeply believed myths, and could just as easily be manipulated. Look at the Salem witch trials. Look at the conspiracies that sprung up from the moon landing or the assassination of JFK.
  - heyoo 6y ago
    The difference is in Facebook amplifying the content's reach just because it is controversial and generates interactions. Most serious media outlets care about the truth of the content they share. Facebook simply does not.
- short_sells_poo 6y ago
  > Same is free speech: when actually exercising this right was about printing books of pamphlets that meant a certain level of financial and intellectual barrier to it, free speech was clearly all benefits and no risks. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this is also a very dangerous approach in my opinion. What you seem to be saying is: "as long as only the well-off - and therefore likely to be educated - people had the means of mass expression, dangerous ideas could not proliferate". Should it be one group of people, preferably "us", who decides what the other groups are allowed to think and discuss? To me this is much more ripe for abuse than the other extreme. Doubly so because the dangers in free speech can be much better solved with education and removing the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. So I disagree vehemently that the solution is to limit free speech. That to me is akin to cutting off our own noses because we have a flu. The root of the problem is elsewhere. What does pretty much every malicious and totalitarian regime start with? 1. Ban free speech 2. Institute the concept of thought crimes 3. Limit education Concentrating knowledge and intelligence in the hands of a few, and reducing information and idea flow to the masses. Dangerous and radical ideas can proliferate mostly among marginalized groups who have been excluded from welfare for one reason or another. People who are gripped by existential fears and see little to no possibility of improvement or solution to their problems will naturally gravitate towards radical opinions because they have nothing to lose, no other options and nobody else listens to them. Banning their voice will do nothing just push them further away and radicalize them even more.
  - anovikov 6y ago
    That's the thing: the concept of "human rights" was born in 1700s exactly because it was technologically limited to the people who invented it: the elites (more often then not, slaveholding elites!). It's just now it backfires because technology changed in the way everyone can use it. And then again, it is mass democracy, which was always a mistake, and if it didn't exist many of the problems we have now won't exist either, it's entirely fair if voting is limited to landowners who have land giving no less than $X annual rent, the way it was in late 1700s-early 1800s America. And even more so when we have massive social programs so democracy becomes a death trap of freeloaders voting for even more free stuff. What is the realistic exit from it? I believe that Chinese way relies too much on individual obedience so culturally impossible in any Western country. Returning to democracy for the elites and human rights for the (sub)elites too, is impossible because it's a catch-22: people won't vote for it. Maybe something like Putinism is a good way out: keep democracy on paper but make sure actual voting is irrelevant, keep free speech on paper but make sure "right" content is ranked better than "wrong" (this is how Russian social media, which is KGB-owned, works, after VK.com acquisition). Of course it can't also work without some countries remaining true democracies - just kept afloat, with their social programs, with massive amounts of stolen money - because the elites need safe places to live in, after all. This way, we will return to the "good old" American system of 200 years ago - except geographically, rather than racially, segregated.
- travisoneill1 6y ago
  > While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit When the 2nd amendment was written there were privately owned battleships
refurb 6y ago
Yup. I think it’s absolutely shocking that people think that with free speech “this time it’s different” and it’s time to further restrict freedom of speech. The thing that really pushed me over the edge was the poll that said “98% of people don’t believe what they read on the internet”.[1]. Unlike many people, I actually have faith that people will accept the truth, eventually. It may take time and it may be messy and ugly, but it will happen. And I also believe that the free flow of ideas (good and bad) is a fundamental quality of the American system that is overall a net plus, not a net negative. And I feel sad when I see people so willing to give up such a fundamental right because of what they see on Facebook. I mean it’s not like there are thousands of examples of where a lack of free speech has been used to oppress people. [1] https://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/almost-everyone-doesnt-trust-the-internet/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/almost-everyone-doesnt-...
- kiba 6y ago
  You mean people believe whatever they want to believe and discard the rest?
- dTal 6y ago
  >Unlike many people, I actually have faith that people will accept the truth, eventually. It is ironic that you use the word "faith", which is a word that means "steadfast belief in spite of lack of evidence, or indeed countervailing evidence". What would it take to convince you of the truth that people do NOT always accept the truth "eventually"? Anything? Or is your faith unshakeable?
meheleventyone 6y ago
Has restricted speech actually killed millions or are you conflating regimes that killed millions and also restricted speech together? Basically I doubt the restriction on speech was a significant causal factor in preventing or encouraging the murder of millions. That is to say those authoritarian regimes would have murdered millions of people even if they were also into free speech. On the free speech and authoritarian side of things you have stuff like the genocide in Myanmar where the direct correlation does appear to be causal: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... What's the amount of murders and ethnic cleansing attributable to free speech where free speech does become suspect? Hundreds, thousands... what?
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  Literally Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The hallmarks of a whole lot of restricted speech. That was the cornerstone of their power dominance since they had perfect and efficient legal and social mechanisms to not just undermine, but arrest and disappear any opposition. Not exactly regiemes know for their humanitarian activities.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    Everyone knows about the Nazis and Soviets but that’s not following through my point. You need to think a little beyond famous example of mass murdering regimes that also were against speech and causally link the speech restriction to the mass murder. As you can do with the Myanmar regime’s genocide and their use of Facebook. Basically authoritarian regimes restrict speech to maintain control but don’t necessarily commit genocide and some authoritarian regimes will use free speech to commit genocide.
    - NoOneNew 6y ago
      Except everyone recognizes that their suppression of speech was a major contributor to their dominance. I dont understand how this is difficult to follow. Opposition speech is the basic cornerstone of freedom of speech. Those in power cannot retaliate against you if you criticize their actions on whatever grounds whether its scientific, moral or economic. If you're in power and say "we need to kill off all stamp collectors to create a better society" then kill/torture/imprison anyone who in turn disagrees with you. Yes, you dont neccesarily get govs that kill off folks in non-free speech societies. The average person also doesn't murder either, we still make it illegal to kill others. You put in place these kinds of laws to create a deterrent or blockade against a ruling body from easily crushing opposition. How in the hell this is difficult to comprehend only means your history knowledge comes from pop culture articles instead of unbiased books. Democratic and republic forms of government are built on concepts to limit total government power and to place checks and balances on those in power. While we can argue the hows to do so, which are typically productive when the initial common ground is accepted, the general consensus after you know history from at least the Magna Carta days shows that those in power need limits. Freedom of speech is one of those mechanisms to limit those in power in a relatively fair way because it is a two way street. You cant shush the opposition, you cant shush those in power. The idea is the people, after hearing both sides, can make a generally good decision. Thats a whole other bag or worms. Anyways, social media has been a huge problem in becoming more one sided in many, many debates. But social media and Facebook are not freedom of speech. The ideal that the silicon valley crowd are a higher form of "for the people, by the people" has been another problem to this mess. They're rich fucks that alter "freedom of speech" by letting certain folks talk and then shushing the other side by burying their argument or just kicking them off. That's a one way street. Free speech is a two way street. They're saying they're agendaless but allow certain ideals to flourish and choke out the others. This ends up having backfiring effect due to creating a giant echo chamber then having the other groups go into their own echo chambers. They're all amplifying to stupid degrees instead of everyone being on the same forum to have a discussion. The social media companies are just that, companies. Zuckerberg and the other cunts are just in it for the money, not for social good. Since their business model was built on a house of cards chock full of debt and investment, they're tied to take large sums of money from whoever's willing to offer it.
berdario 6y ago
> Restricted speech has killed millions. You don't need to restrict speech to kill millions, you just need to have a louder voice than the people you are oppressing, deafening out anyone who might otherwise listen to them.
- lldbg 6y ago
  There's a whole lot of terrible screaming when you kill people, unless you restrict their ability to speak :) Very unpalatable, even to the executioner.

by lldbg 6y ago

anovikov 6y ago

The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Which is not to say i am against 2nd Amendment, just that the situation changed and concern of many people are understandable. Same is free speech: when actually exercising this right was about printing books of pamphlets that meant a certain level of financial and intellectual barrier to it, free speech was clearly all benefits and no risks. Now that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook - and with well, intellectual majority driving the views and rankings of them so smart content ends up unnoticed coz it's so nerdy - people are right to be concerned.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
Where can you buy assault rifles?
- BrianOnHN 6y ago
  At the local "gun show." It's advertised on billboards all along the highway. No background check required!
  - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    Fully automatic military assault weapons? I don't think so.
    - BrianOnHN 6y ago
      Welcome to FL USA
      - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        Where in FL USA can one legally purchase fully automatic weapons without a special federal permit?
        sneak 6y ago
        Just about any federal dealer. There is no permit required to purchase fully automatic weapons in the United States; you just have to pay a transfer tax. Unfortunately processing the tax payment takes about a year, in their effort to turn it into a form of permit, but that's not what it is. Anyone (without criminal background) can pay the tax and buy one. There is a ban on the import and manufacture of new ones (for civilian use) in place since 1986, so the ones available for purchase (by anyone, again, no "special federal permit" required) cost about 10-20x more than they would cost otherwise, which effectively restricts them to "rich people only". They're freely available, though.
        blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        You have to pay $200 and send an application to the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms. It takes 8 months to a year; they will do a background investigation and send you an approval form if you pass. Then you can purchase the (used) machine gun. Fully automatic weapons are not currently manufactured in the U.S. Florida, in particular, has banned machine guns like the AK-47 which is to say weapons that fire multiple bullets with one pull of the trigger. Semi-autos are the dominant technology in firearms; when a bullet is fired, the energy released forces a fresh bullet into the chamber, ready to fire but you must pull the trigger again. This is known as "semi-automatic" and is legal everywhere, for now.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Some US states allow civilian ownership of automatic rifles, although it's typically a lot of hassle and expense with licensing and taxes.
- dTal 6y ago
  In 43 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in...
  - karaterobot 6y ago
    The person you're responding to asked about assault rifles, and you responded with a link about assault weapons. They're very different things, and this has led to a lot of confusion. Generally, when people talk about "assault weapons" they're actually thinking of automatic, military-style weapons with large magazines. Those are "assault rifles", which have been legislated at the federal level for a long time. The laws are indeed complicated, but in general these weapons are hard to get legally. Here's an decent explainer: https://www.ajc.com/news/national/assault-weapon-assault-rifle-what-the-difference/LPXLAj8ZcHkPn2rLn3bOGK/ https://www.ajc.com/news/national/assault-weapon-assault-rif...
- refurb 6y ago
  What’s an assault rifle? A normal rifle with features that scared people but have no impact on the actual lethality?
  - jordanbeiber 6y ago
    A specific compact form-factor and multiple rounds in a magazine that allow for more rapid fire than a bolt action rifle? I know people claim "hunting" with these rifles, but I think there's a shiny toy thing at play more than utility.
    - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      No, you're describing a semi-automatic weapon, which requires a separate trigger pull for each shot. Fully automatic allows multiple shots with one pull of the trigger.
      - detaro 6y ago
        I don't see how this addresses anything in the parent comment? Are you trying to say they can't define assault weapons as including semi-automatics?
        blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        Yes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons which are the majority of firearms manufactured and sold today in the U.S. The anti-gun lobby has conflated the terms to push a blanket ban on anything that looks remotely military. But functionally, it's two separate categories and fully automatic weapons require a federal permit that takes about a year.
        detaro 6y ago
        If you think that's the definition, why not clearly say that instead of playing this "let others guess what your definition is" game? > Yes, assault weapons are a different category, legally and technically, from semi-automatic weapons What's the clear legal definition of an assault weapon? E.g. as referenced elsewhere in the comments here, the federal assault weapons ban clearly talked about "semi-automatic assault weapons", suggesting the legal definition was not so clearly "only full-automatics"?
kiba 6y ago
The problem is with facebook making a post viral. Anyone can post anything online, but it won't do any good or bad if nobody reads it.
lldbg 6y ago
So free speech was good, when it was restricted to the elite (those of means and intellect). Now that the unwashed masses, the plebs, have access to it, it's no longer good?
- anovikov 6y ago
  Exactly! And so was the democracy itself (in Washington's times, only 3% of people could vote and it was great, in Andrew Jackson's, 15%, and it was still sort of OK, but anything more was a disaster waiting to happen)
TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
Now that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook... people are right to be concerned. People always had the right and capacity to make conspiracy theories. They deeply believed myths, and could just as easily be manipulated. Look at the Salem witch trials. Look at the conspiracies that sprung up from the moon landing or the assassination of JFK.
- heyoo 6y ago
  The difference is in Facebook amplifying the content's reach just because it is controversial and generates interactions. Most serious media outlets care about the truth of the content they share. Facebook simply does not.
short_sells_poo 6y ago
> Same is free speech: when actually exercising this right was about printing books of pamphlets that meant a certain level of financial and intellectual barrier to it, free speech was clearly all benefits and no risks. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this is also a very dangerous approach in my opinion. What you seem to be saying is: "as long as only the well-off - and therefore likely to be educated - people had the means of mass expression, dangerous ideas could not proliferate". Should it be one group of people, preferably "us", who decides what the other groups are allowed to think and discuss? To me this is much more ripe for abuse than the other extreme. Doubly so because the dangers in free speech can be much better solved with education and removing the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. So I disagree vehemently that the solution is to limit free speech. That to me is akin to cutting off our own noses because we have a flu. The root of the problem is elsewhere. What does pretty much every malicious and totalitarian regime start with? 1. Ban free speech 2. Institute the concept of thought crimes 3. Limit education Concentrating knowledge and intelligence in the hands of a few, and reducing information and idea flow to the masses. Dangerous and radical ideas can proliferate mostly among marginalized groups who have been excluded from welfare for one reason or another. People who are gripped by existential fears and see little to no possibility of improvement or solution to their problems will naturally gravitate towards radical opinions because they have nothing to lose, no other options and nobody else listens to them. Banning their voice will do nothing just push them further away and radicalize them even more.
- anovikov 6y ago
  That's the thing: the concept of "human rights" was born in 1700s exactly because it was technologically limited to the people who invented it: the elites (more often then not, slaveholding elites!). It's just now it backfires because technology changed in the way everyone can use it. And then again, it is mass democracy, which was always a mistake, and if it didn't exist many of the problems we have now won't exist either, it's entirely fair if voting is limited to landowners who have land giving no less than $X annual rent, the way it was in late 1700s-early 1800s America. And even more so when we have massive social programs so democracy becomes a death trap of freeloaders voting for even more free stuff. What is the realistic exit from it? I believe that Chinese way relies too much on individual obedience so culturally impossible in any Western country. Returning to democracy for the elites and human rights for the (sub)elites too, is impossible because it's a catch-22: people won't vote for it. Maybe something like Putinism is a good way out: keep democracy on paper but make sure actual voting is irrelevant, keep free speech on paper but make sure "right" content is ranked better than "wrong" (this is how Russian social media, which is KGB-owned, works, after VK.com acquisition). Of course it can't also work without some countries remaining true democracies - just kept afloat, with their social programs, with massive amounts of stolen money - because the elites need safe places to live in, after all. This way, we will return to the "good old" American system of 200 years ago - except geographically, rather than racially, segregated.
travisoneill1 6y ago
> While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit When the 2nd amendment was written there were privately owned battleships

refurb 6y ago

Yup. I think it’s absolutely shocking that people think that with free speech “this time it’s different” and it’s time to further restrict freedom of speech. The thing that really pushed me over the edge was the poll that said “98% of people don’t believe what they read on the internet”.[1]. Unlike many people, I actually have faith that people will accept the truth, eventually. It may take time and it may be messy and ugly, but it will happen. And I also believe that the free flow of ideas (good and bad) is a fundamental quality of the American system that is overall a net plus, not a net negative. And I feel sad when I see people so willing to give up such a fundamental right because of what they see on Facebook. I mean it’s not like there are thousands of examples of where a lack of free speech has been used to oppress people. [1] https://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/almost-everyone-doesnt-trust-the-internet/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/almost-everyone-doesnt-...

kiba 6y ago
You mean people believe whatever they want to believe and discard the rest?
dTal 6y ago
>Unlike many people, I actually have faith that people will accept the truth, eventually. It is ironic that you use the word "faith", which is a word that means "steadfast belief in spite of lack of evidence, or indeed countervailing evidence". What would it take to convince you of the truth that people do NOT always accept the truth "eventually"? Anything? Or is your faith unshakeable?

meheleventyone 6y ago

Has restricted speech actually killed millions or are you conflating regimes that killed millions and also restricted speech together? Basically I doubt the restriction on speech was a significant causal factor in preventing or encouraging the murder of millions. That is to say those authoritarian regimes would have murdered millions of people even if they were also into free speech. On the free speech and authoritarian side of things you have stuff like the genocide in Myanmar where the direct correlation does appear to be causal: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... What's the amount of murders and ethnic cleansing attributable to free speech where free speech does become suspect? Hundreds, thousands... what?

NoOneNew 6y ago
Literally Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The hallmarks of a whole lot of restricted speech. That was the cornerstone of their power dominance since they had perfect and efficient legal and social mechanisms to not just undermine, but arrest and disappear any opposition. Not exactly regiemes know for their humanitarian activities.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Everyone knows about the Nazis and Soviets but that’s not following through my point. You need to think a little beyond famous example of mass murdering regimes that also were against speech and causally link the speech restriction to the mass murder. As you can do with the Myanmar regime’s genocide and their use of Facebook. Basically authoritarian regimes restrict speech to maintain control but don’t necessarily commit genocide and some authoritarian regimes will use free speech to commit genocide.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    Except everyone recognizes that their suppression of speech was a major contributor to their dominance. I dont understand how this is difficult to follow. Opposition speech is the basic cornerstone of freedom of speech. Those in power cannot retaliate against you if you criticize their actions on whatever grounds whether its scientific, moral or economic. If you're in power and say "we need to kill off all stamp collectors to create a better society" then kill/torture/imprison anyone who in turn disagrees with you. Yes, you dont neccesarily get govs that kill off folks in non-free speech societies. The average person also doesn't murder either, we still make it illegal to kill others. You put in place these kinds of laws to create a deterrent or blockade against a ruling body from easily crushing opposition. How in the hell this is difficult to comprehend only means your history knowledge comes from pop culture articles instead of unbiased books. Democratic and republic forms of government are built on concepts to limit total government power and to place checks and balances on those in power. While we can argue the hows to do so, which are typically productive when the initial common ground is accepted, the general consensus after you know history from at least the Magna Carta days shows that those in power need limits. Freedom of speech is one of those mechanisms to limit those in power in a relatively fair way because it is a two way street. You cant shush the opposition, you cant shush those in power. The idea is the people, after hearing both sides, can make a generally good decision. Thats a whole other bag or worms. Anyways, social media has been a huge problem in becoming more one sided in many, many debates. But social media and Facebook are not freedom of speech. The ideal that the silicon valley crowd are a higher form of "for the people, by the people" has been another problem to this mess. They're rich fucks that alter "freedom of speech" by letting certain folks talk and then shushing the other side by burying their argument or just kicking them off. That's a one way street. Free speech is a two way street. They're saying they're agendaless but allow certain ideals to flourish and choke out the others. This ends up having backfiring effect due to creating a giant echo chamber then having the other groups go into their own echo chambers. They're all amplifying to stupid degrees instead of everyone being on the same forum to have a discussion. The social media companies are just that, companies. Zuckerberg and the other cunts are just in it for the money, not for social good. Since their business model was built on a house of cards chock full of debt and investment, they're tied to take large sums of money from whoever's willing to offer it.

berdario 6y ago

> Restricted speech has killed millions. You don't need to restrict speech to kill millions, you just need to have a louder voice than the people you are oppressing, deafening out anyone who might otherwise listen to them.

lldbg 6y ago
There's a whole lot of terrible screaming when you kill people, unless you restrict their ability to speak :) Very unpalatable, even to the executioner.