4 ms·
What's naive is thinking that anyone, once empowered to define impermissible speech, would not eventually expand that definition to include inconvenient speech.
by jessedhillon 6y ago
What's naive is thinking that anyone, once empowered to define impermissible speech, would not eventually expand that definition to include inconvenient speech.
Freedom of speech exists to protect the rights of minorities: the opinions of the majority are tautologically safe to speak. It's unpopular opinions which need protection, and nothing is more unpopular than an inconvenient truth.
- shadowgovt 6y agoFederal courts are already empowered to define impermissible speech, and the worst-case scenario you describe has not happened. This is a hypothesis in want of evidence.
- jessedhillon 6y agoFederal courts are restrained by the defining document of this country, and by the other branches of government. This is literally the reason why all power is not vested into one branch: to restrain each other from the known corrosive effect of power. So no, they are not empowered to do this, and they don't have much power (comparatively) to be shielding from free speech in the first place.
- shadowgovt 6y agoThey have constraints, but yes, by their judgments they define permissible speech. Consider the Larry Flynn obscenity case.
- jessedhillon 6y agoAnd what restraints are in place on social media or app platforms when they police speech? Only the ones they place on themselves, so this analogy is broken.
- shadowgovt 6y agoSo you're saying, if I understand correctly, that private orgs (not anyone), unconstrained from what constraints they are allowed to apply, will eventually include inconvenient speech. Probably, but as long as the government isn't putting undue constraints on, the market solves this problem. Parler is right there if a person doesn't like Facebook.