3 ms·
Yes, and I fundamentally reject the premise that inaccurate expression should be censored or moderated without a proximate cause to a specific harm or credible
by mercurialshark 6y ago
Yes, and I fundamentally reject the premise that inaccurate expression should be censored or moderated without a proximate cause to a specific harm or credible imminent apprehension of harm.
I do not think censorship is justifiable for potential or non-quantifiable, collective psychic harm.
- opendysphoria 6y ago>I do not think censorship is justifiable for potential or non-quantifiable, collective psychic harm. Can you provide an example?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mercurialshark 6y agoIf someone posts an inaccurate or untruthful comment that a reasonable person would not rely upon for their safety, I think the correct response is to mute, unfollow or retort (and if it's self-evident, hopefully it's easy to explain why it's inaccurate or link to countered evidence). However, the imminent apprehension of harm (from a direct, credible or specific threat), does comport with the concept of assault and is grounds for moderation. Likewise, demonstrating proximate cause from someones actions to a specific harm/damages, would also be grounds for censorship.