3 ms·

Incorrect. We can prosecute against those who break the law. We must not censor, because that is the slippery slope; all the more so when it is done w

Incorrect. We can __prosecute__ against those who break the law. We __must not__ censor, because that is the slippery slope; all the more so when it is done without judicial oversight in an adversarial review system.

leesalminen 6y ago
Agreed. If something is explicitly illegal, then that’s grounds for censorship. If something isn’t explicitly illegal, then it shouldn’t be censored. The First Amendment in the US provides for nearly limitless free speech, with very few exceptions. That’s how we should police speech online.
betterunix2 6y ago
That is a distinction without a difference. You are talking about the mechanics of censorship.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  It isn't. There are two differences. The first is that prosecutions are retrospective. If something is true and you can't stop anyone from saying it, only punish them after, then people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for the truth can't be silenced. There is also less incentive to punish them because the cat is already out of the bag, and people are more willing to push back against a prosecution for speaking a truth that they've seen survive an adversarial public debate. The second is that prosecutions happen in courts bound (in the US) by the First Amendment, and the prosecution fails if the defendant was engaged in protected speech. Facebook or Comcast/MSNBC (note: the same company) deciding what constitutes "misinformation" with no accountability for over-censoring is not that.
jefft255 6y ago
If I understand correctly, you're claiming that we __must not__ censor child pornography? Isn't prosecution a form of censorship anyways? I think what you're saying is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  Following the law is a slippery slope? I’m pretty sure the parent is saying that because child pornography is explicitly illegal, it can (and should) be censored.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    I believe this is the same logic being used to sensor covid deniers, false cures, and fraudulent election crackpots like our last president. The latter type of lie incites people to insurrection and riles up violence, the other two cause people to do things that may kill themselves or others.
    - leesalminen 6y ago
      Last time I checked no court of law had convicted the former President of any criminal offense. So, no, I don’t see how that logic was used to censor him. Same for false cures to diseases, nobody imprisons pseudoscience witch doctors for recommending vitamins to cure cancer. (Maybe if they claimed to be a medical doctor?) If that were so, I know of a half dozen people in Boulder that would’ve been in jail by now. Certainly no court had convicted any of these people of a crime prior to censorship. So, as far as I can tell, these people had been censored without having committed (or at least convicted of) a crime.
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        He got off on a technicality. Even many of those that voted not to convict said that they thought he was guilty. They just didn't think they could convict a non-sitting president. False cures for diseases, yes, people absolutely go to jail or receive massive fines. Sometimes on charges of fraud, sometimes on charges of endangerment. If your fake cure doesn't actually do harm (and is just useless) then you can usually get away with it. A quick google search will show you multiple stories about criminal charges for fake covid cures.

Incorrect. We can __prosecute__ against those who break the law. We __must not__ censor, because that is the slippery slope; all the more so when it is done w

leesalminen 6y ago

Agreed. If something is explicitly illegal, then that’s grounds for censorship. If something isn’t explicitly illegal, then it shouldn’t be censored. The First Amendment in the US provides for nearly limitless free speech, with very few exceptions. That’s how we should police speech online.

betterunix2 6y ago

That is a distinction without a difference. You are talking about the mechanics of censorship.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
It isn't. There are two differences. The first is that prosecutions are retrospective. If something is true and you can't stop anyone from saying it, only punish them after, then people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for the truth can't be silenced. There is also less incentive to punish them because the cat is already out of the bag, and people are more willing to push back against a prosecution for speaking a truth that they've seen survive an adversarial public debate. The second is that prosecutions happen in courts bound (in the US) by the First Amendment, and the prosecution fails if the defendant was engaged in protected speech. Facebook or Comcast/MSNBC (note: the same company) deciding what constitutes "misinformation" with no accountability for over-censoring is not that.

jefft255 6y ago

If I understand correctly, you're claiming that we __must not__ censor child pornography? Isn't prosecution a form of censorship anyways? I think what you're saying is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.

leesalminen 6y ago
Following the law is a slippery slope? I’m pretty sure the parent is saying that because child pornography is explicitly illegal, it can (and should) be censored.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  I believe this is the same logic being used to sensor covid deniers, false cures, and fraudulent election crackpots like our last president. The latter type of lie incites people to insurrection and riles up violence, the other two cause people to do things that may kill themselves or others.
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    Last time I checked no court of law had convicted the former President of any criminal offense. So, no, I don’t see how that logic was used to censor him. Same for false cures to diseases, nobody imprisons pseudoscience witch doctors for recommending vitamins to cure cancer. (Maybe if they claimed to be a medical doctor?) If that were so, I know of a half dozen people in Boulder that would’ve been in jail by now. Certainly no court had convicted any of these people of a crime prior to censorship. So, as far as I can tell, these people had been censored without having committed (or at least convicted of) a crime.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      He got off on a technicality. Even many of those that voted not to convict said that they thought he was guilty. They just didn't think they could convict a non-sitting president. False cures for diseases, yes, people absolutely go to jail or receive massive fines. Sometimes on charges of fraud, sometimes on charges of endangerment. If your fake cure doesn't actually do harm (and is just useless) then you can usually get away with it. A quick google search will show you multiple stories about criminal charges for fake covid cures.