3 ms·

Popular speech doesn't need protection.

vlovich123 6y ago
That’s a pithy retort devoid of content. If 60% of the population believes the truth (for the sake of argument) and 40% believes another, the 40% can still do quite a bit of damage by intentionally spreading misinformation (causing confusion and chaos that the 60% have to distract themselves from) and/or violence (government overthrow doesn’t have to come from the majority). Similarly, it’s not hard to imagine that if the minority is the one that’s correct, the majority can cause some damage enforcing the belief that the emperor is indeed wearing clothes. The truth is the thing that needs protection, not speech. The challenge is that objective truth can be epistemologically difficult to protect without protecting lies (or conversely fighting falsehoods can inadvertently end up fighting some truths).
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Worse, if the 40% are more enthusiastic about spreading their viewpoint than the 60% are about spreading the truth, then social media may have a majority of posts supporting the falsehood.
- beerandt 6y ago
  >The challenge is that objective truth can be epistemologically difficult to protect without protecting lies Which is why even lies are, and should be, protected speech, even if that's not the current trendy thought. Ultimately what it comes down to is: protecting unpopular minority opinions. If they're not protected, how would it even be possible to evaluate the "truth" of the content. There is no universal truth. That's why everyone's speech should be protected. Even lies. Consider: Every civil rights achievement made in the last 100 years. If the minority opinion was squelched without a chance to be considered, what progress would have been made? Would a "Ministry of Truth" in whatever form it might take, have even allowed statements questioning racial or gender equality? Any system that enforces such censorship becomes a theocracy dictating dogma. A statement as simple as "There is no god" would become blasphemous again.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    Actually I want 0 protections for lies. Whether the truth is in the majority or minority wouldn’t matter. The challenge is how to distinguish lies from truth. For what it’s worth the court system tends to be a place where that actually holds (discovered lies have a penalty). I think something similar could be done in the public square for public personalities as those personalities have an outsized influence on the public. In other words, as a public figure if you make blatantly false statements you open yourself to law suits where you have to demonstrate you had a good faith reason for your statement. This would instantly quash a lot of bullshit that politicians and celebrities spew with minimal downsides. It’s the same line of reasoning that prevents public figures from suing people who make fun of them - when you’re a public figure you have an outsized responsibility to the public good.

That’s a pithy retort devoid of content. If 60% of the population believes the truth (for the sake of argument) and 40% believes another, the 40% can still do quite a bit of damage by intentionally spreading misinformation (causing confusion and chaos that the 60% have to distract themselves from) and/or violence (government overthrow doesn’t have to come from the majority). Similarly, it’s not hard to imagine that if the minority is the one that’s correct, the majority can cause some damage enforcing the belief that the emperor is indeed wearing clothes. The truth is the thing that needs protection, not speech. The challenge is that objective truth can be epistemologically difficult to protect without protecting lies (or conversely fighting falsehoods can inadvertently end up fighting some truths).

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Worse, if the 40% are more enthusiastic about spreading their viewpoint than the 60% are about spreading the truth, then social media may have a majority of posts supporting the falsehood.
beerandt 6y ago
>The challenge is that objective truth can be epistemologically difficult to protect without protecting lies Which is why even lies are, and should be, protected speech, even if that's not the current trendy thought. Ultimately what it comes down to is: protecting unpopular minority opinions. If they're not protected, how would it even be possible to evaluate the "truth" of the content. There is no universal truth. That's why everyone's speech should be protected. Even lies. Consider: Every civil rights achievement made in the last 100 years. If the minority opinion was squelched without a chance to be considered, what progress would have been made? Would a "Ministry of Truth" in whatever form it might take, have even allowed statements questioning racial or gender equality? Any system that enforces such censorship becomes a theocracy dictating dogma. A statement as simple as "There is no god" would become blasphemous again.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Actually I want 0 protections for lies. Whether the truth is in the majority or minority wouldn’t matter. The challenge is how to distinguish lies from truth. For what it’s worth the court system tends to be a place where that actually holds (discovered lies have a penalty). I think something similar could be done in the public square for public personalities as those personalities have an outsized influence on the public. In other words, as a public figure if you make blatantly false statements you open yourself to law suits where you have to demonstrate you had a good faith reason for your statement. This would instantly quash a lot of bullshit that politicians and celebrities spew with minimal downsides. It’s the same line of reasoning that prevents public figures from suing people who make fun of them - when you’re a public figure you have an outsized responsibility to the public good.