3 ms·

Yes, expedited the decentralised, uncensorable web by 3-5 years. Then we're back to square one with no recourse.

ascendantlogic 6y ago
Where is the line? Do we defend free speech as violent mobs incited on false pretense attempt to overthrow the government to install their wannabe dictator back into power? If that happens do you think freedom of speech will survive? If Trump were to succeed with his coup and be put back into power do you really think the constitution survives in its current incarnation at all? Freedom of speech is one thing but when it finally translates into violent action it's a different animal.
- JasonFruit 6y ago
  Yes, that's exactly when we defend free speech — when it is unpleasant, disgusting, even hateful — because that's when precedents are set that will affect us all.
  - geofft 6y ago
    The allegation is not that it's merely unpleasant, but that it threatens the future of free speech itself. If "defending free speech" takes us to a world where free speech doesn't exist, then you didn't actually defend free speech at all. (You might disagree that free speech is at risk from people enacting violence against the government in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election - if so, make that argument, instead of repeating platitudes about how it's important to defend free speech you don't like.)
    - JasonFruit 6y ago
      So you're saying, "Destroy free speech to defend free speech"? That sounds a lot like "Destroy the republic to save the republic." I've heard a lot of both recently, and I don't agree with either.
      - metabagel 6y ago
        You don’t seem to be making much of an attempt to understand.
        geofft 6y ago
        (Which is ironic, because the point of free speech, one would hope, would be to try to understand new viewpoints instead of yelling your slogans into increasingly loud megaphones. Free speech advocates who treat speech as an end in itself rather than as a means to some obviously useful goal like improving society are a large part of why there isn't as much of a public commitment to free speech as you would hope.)
      - jonathanyc 6y ago
        Restricting speech that calls for the lynching of the Vice President is “destroying free speech” in the same way that restricting the ownership of nukes is “destroying the right to bear arms”. Prohibiting people from yelling fire in a crowded theater is not “destroying free speech.” I’d advise you to read about: - the paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance - the “imminent lawless action” standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
  - metabagel 6y ago
    I feel like you read the parent comment too quickly. In short, the argument is that if we tolerate the intolerant and they come into power, our freedoms will be gone as well. This is why Germany bans Nazi symbols and propaganda.
    - JasonFruit 6y ago
      I understand what might make you feel that way, but I don't agree that banning the speech of those you disagree with is the way to keep them from power. Instead, oppose them with your own, better speech. That way you don't give them the validation of making you look too afraid to let them be heard, and you haven't set the precedent of banning political speech you don't like. If you can't allow an idea to be expressed, you are admitting that idea will overcome your ideas if it is heard. Can you really say that about the ideas that led to the Capitol fiasco? I hope not.
      - KozmoNau7 6y ago
        Germany learned the lesson that to prevent fascist sentiments growing in the population, you have to 1) make sure the common person does not face undue hardship, which could let reactionary sentiments fester, and 2) come down hard on the symbolism and rhetoric of fascism. Lately over the last couple of decades, there has unfortunately been a new rise in fascism in Germany, due to financial crises and austerity policies. Further, the embers of fascist sympathies especially in the police and military have not been snuffed out like they should have been.
        JasonFruit 6y ago
        Germany did those things, but even your description of the situation suggests it was not the right choice. Doesn't the resurgence of fascism from "embers of fascist sympathies" suggest to you that shutting down fascist speech didn't do the job it was meant to do, i.e. extinguish fascism? The speech is a symptom; the ideas are the disease. To combat the disease, you need to supply better ideas, not shut down the speech.
- salawat 6y ago
  You talk more, not less when the guns start getting drawn. That they got drawn in the first place means you weren't talking when you should have been. Communication, the lack of it, and the amplifying nature of that lack on social disorder is well supported relationship in modern history.
- offby37years 6y ago
  There is no going back now. Imagine. It's 2024, Biden is re-elected under contested circumstances. Tens of millions of (mostly armed) patriots that again feel disenfranchised, though this time vindicated through four years of censorship and with unencumbered communication channels. Remember, Hitler's first coup failed too.

Where is the line? Do we defend free speech as violent mobs incited on false pretense attempt to overthrow the government to install their wannabe dictator back into power? If that happens do you think freedom of speech will survive? If Trump were to succeed with his coup and be put back into power do you really think the constitution survives in its current incarnation at all? Freedom of speech is one thing but when it finally translates into violent action it's a different animal.

JasonFruit 6y ago
Yes, that's exactly when we defend free speech — when it is unpleasant, disgusting, even hateful — because that's when precedents are set that will affect us all.
- geofft 6y ago
  The allegation is not that it's merely unpleasant, but that it threatens the future of free speech itself. If "defending free speech" takes us to a world where free speech doesn't exist, then you didn't actually defend free speech at all. (You might disagree that free speech is at risk from people enacting violence against the government in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election - if so, make that argument, instead of repeating platitudes about how it's important to defend free speech you don't like.)
  - JasonFruit 6y ago
    So you're saying, "Destroy free speech to defend free speech"? That sounds a lot like "Destroy the republic to save the republic." I've heard a lot of both recently, and I don't agree with either.
    - metabagel 6y ago
      You don’t seem to be making much of an attempt to understand.
      - geofft 6y ago
        (Which is ironic, because the point of free speech, one would hope, would be to try to understand new viewpoints instead of yelling your slogans into increasingly loud megaphones. Free speech advocates who treat speech as an end in itself rather than as a means to some obviously useful goal like improving society are a large part of why there isn't as much of a public commitment to free speech as you would hope.)
    - jonathanyc 6y ago
      Restricting speech that calls for the lynching of the Vice President is “destroying free speech” in the same way that restricting the ownership of nukes is “destroying the right to bear arms”. Prohibiting people from yelling fire in a crowded theater is not “destroying free speech.” I’d advise you to read about: - the paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance - the “imminent lawless action” standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
- metabagel 6y ago
  I feel like you read the parent comment too quickly. In short, the argument is that if we tolerate the intolerant and they come into power, our freedoms will be gone as well. This is why Germany bans Nazi symbols and propaganda.
  - JasonFruit 6y ago
    I understand what might make you feel that way, but I don't agree that banning the speech of those you disagree with is the way to keep them from power. Instead, oppose them with your own, better speech. That way you don't give them the validation of making you look too afraid to let them be heard, and you haven't set the precedent of banning political speech you don't like. If you can't allow an idea to be expressed, you are admitting that idea will overcome your ideas if it is heard. Can you really say that about the ideas that led to the Capitol fiasco? I hope not.
    - KozmoNau7 6y ago
      Germany learned the lesson that to prevent fascist sentiments growing in the population, you have to 1) make sure the common person does not face undue hardship, which could let reactionary sentiments fester, and 2) come down hard on the symbolism and rhetoric of fascism. Lately over the last couple of decades, there has unfortunately been a new rise in fascism in Germany, due to financial crises and austerity policies. Further, the embers of fascist sympathies especially in the police and military have not been snuffed out like they should have been.
      - JasonFruit 6y ago
        Germany did those things, but even your description of the situation suggests it was not the right choice. Doesn't the resurgence of fascism from "embers of fascist sympathies" suggest to you that shutting down fascist speech didn't do the job it was meant to do, i.e. extinguish fascism? The speech is a symptom; the ideas are the disease. To combat the disease, you need to supply better ideas, not shut down the speech.
salawat 6y ago
You talk more, not less when the guns start getting drawn. That they got drawn in the first place means you weren't talking when you should have been. Communication, the lack of it, and the amplifying nature of that lack on social disorder is well supported relationship in modern history.
offby37years 6y ago
There is no going back now. Imagine. It's 2024, Biden is re-elected under contested circumstances. Tens of millions of (mostly armed) patriots that again feel disenfranchised, though this time vindicated through four years of censorship and with unencumbered communication channels. Remember, Hitler's first coup failed too.