3 ms·

Well, then, let's make lies illegal, if that's where you're drawing the line.

• gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  You realize how liable to abuse the idea of “truth” is in a tyrannical regime? Or even just fallible and misguided people? Like, eugenicists in the 1920s would have a whole host of horrid “truths” they thought were scientifically supported at the time. Imagine the hurdles opposition would have in trying to voice their “factual truth.”
  • UncleMeat 6y ago
    Of course it is abusable. The state has done all sorts of tremendously evil things when wielding its power. "Free speech" has never stopped the crushing of legitimate protest. This is not a surprise to leftist activists, who have been consistently violently attacked by the state for more than a century. I find these arguments so disingenuous when people throw them out while also doing little to nothing to curb existing state abuse. I've never seen right wing "free speech absolutists" at trans-rights protests or fighting against state interference in left-coded academic work. General restrictions on state power don't work. Capitalism crushes people. When that state power turns on the majority, the majority complains that their voices are silenced and then they go right back to ignoring the continued problems of the minority. Perhaps the solution is to approach each situation on a case by case process. Protest and agitate when the state harms people and celebrate when the state protects people. Make harm reduction the goal. In software people often point to how focusing on metrics can make you fail to achieve your true goal. Similarly, we should focus on the thing that free speech is intending to achieve rather than free speech itself.
    • gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      Freedoms enumerated in the bill of rights were chosen as a reflection of morality. You’re arguing utilitarianism about what’s a moral issue of the inherent right of people to express themselves.
      • UncleMeat 6y ago
        Yet you oppose certain kinds of speech outright by virtue of the fact that the population has decided via democratic legislation that they should be crimes, presumably because of the harm that they cause. I don't believe that the intention of the framers was that free speech was a good in-and-of itself but that making it difficult (but not impossible) to restrict speech has positive outcomes. At the very least, that is my read of things.
        • gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
          The whole “unalienable rights” of individuals suggests that this isn’t a democratic notion, it’s a moral philosophy and conviction.
          • UncleMeat 6y ago
            Yet false advertisement is illegal and you even support its status as illegal speech.