3 ms·
> You don't need to protect speech everyone finds unobjectionable. I wasn't talking about objectionable opinions or perspectives. I was talking about lies and
by ardy42 6y ago
> You don't need to protect speech everyone finds unobjectionable.
I wasn't talking about objectionable opinions or perspectives. I was talking about lies and falsehoods, which are becoming alarmingly widespread. Even now those things don't full First Amendment protections, which is why there can be laws against fraud and defamation, and the Supreme Court has even said "false statements of fact" do not enjoy protection [1].
You've recited many slogans, but it's important to consider what free speech is supposed to achieve, which, IMHO, is to allow progress towards truth. It's also important to keep other considerations in mind, and balance them. If you but too much focus on too small an area, you can easily find yourself becoming a Paperclip Maximizer.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- jcranmer 6y agoDo note that US v Alvarez did hold that false statements are not a sufficient basis to restrict speech--there needs to be something else to justify restriction of speech. Or, a better quote from the syllabus: > Although the Court has frequently said or implied that false factual statements enjoy little First Amendment protection, see, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 340, those statements cannot be read to mean “no protection at all.”
- ardy42 6y agoThat's true, but we're actually talking about YouTube here, not the government. So if false factual statements enjoy little First Amendment protection, then there's even less grounds to whine about a private party choosing not to disseminate them.