3 ms·

>The challenge is that objective truth can be epistemologically difficult to protect without protecting lies Which is why even lies are, and should be, protect

>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.

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.