2 ms·

I was just covering one side of the equation. I don't like censorship, and as they say: you should legislate as if your opponent is the one that will apply the

I was just covering one side of the equation. I don't like censorship, and as they say: you should legislate as if your opponent is the one that will apply the law. You can apply censorship to take care of one "good" reason, but eventually censorship will be applied for a "bad" reason. What I wanted to focus on is that it is not true that free speech is the solution to all democratic problems, it's not an absolute good. We limit speech already, you can't advocate for the killing of other people, races, etc... Also, about free speech, if you can say what you want but there are very large entities controlling who gets to hear what you say, then in a way censorship might be already happening. In this case non-arousing messages are being suppressed because they don't make money, so we all feel like everybody is either pro-this or against-this, and they're all really mad and or dangerous. This is not an easy problem to solve.

Reelin 6y ago
> We limit speech already, you can't advocate for the killing of other people, races, etc... Actually, not that I support such behavior but (at least in the US) you can generally advocate for it. People usually don't (thankfully) so I don't have any examples immediately to hand, but my understanding is that the legal test is "imminent lawless action". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) > free speech is the solution to all democratic problems, it's not an absolute good Rather than an absolute good, I would argue that it ought to be viewed as an absolute right. I would also argue that, whether used for good or ill, free political speech is a functional necessity of any democracy. (Necessary but not sufficient and all that.) > in a way censorship might be already happening. In this case non-arousing messages are being suppressed Agreed, but it's a separate issue and I've no idea what anyone is actually supposed to do about it.

Reelin 6y ago

> We limit speech already, you can't advocate for the killing of other people, races, etc... Actually, not that I support such behavior but (at least in the US) you can generally advocate for it. People usually don't (thankfully) so I don't have any examples immediately to hand, but my understanding is that the legal test is "imminent lawless action". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) > free speech is the solution to all democratic problems, it's not an absolute good Rather than an absolute good, I would argue that it ought to be viewed as an absolute right. I would also argue that, whether used for good or ill, free political speech is a functional necessity of any democracy. (Necessary but not sufficient and all that.) > in a way censorship might be already happening. In this case non-arousing messages are being suppressed Agreed, but it's a separate issue and I've no idea what anyone is actually supposed to do about it.