3 ms·

According to the authors logic, we should stop censoring child grooming, fraud, false advertisement, defamation, doxxing, false testimony, etc. because "it does

According to the authors logic, we should stop censoring child grooming, fraud, false advertisement, defamation, doxxing, false testimony, etc. because "it doesn't work" and "erodes free speech". This is clearly nonsense. It works, and it should be done, the only question as with all laws is were the line should be. We restrict freedom in general when it hurts other people (slavery, rape, killing, trespassing,etc) and we don't go around crying about slippery slopes and lack of freedom for it. Clear examples of good censoring of free speech are the courts decision in the Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case and the Washington Post paying reparations to Nathan Phillips (the child mocking the native American). In both cases their "free speech" caused damage to people and the court decided that they weren't protect under the free speech laws.

refurb 6y ago
But Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case wasn't censorship (he was free to say what he said), he was sued for defamation. We already have laws on that and all the other stuff you mention child grooming, fraud, false advertisement, doxxing, false testimony, etc. The point is - we have laws for speech that enters the criminal realm.
- ephimetheus 6y ago
  So how is Volksverhetzung, which is defined by law, any different?
  - refurb 6y ago
    That’s a speech law, thus it would be a circular argument (I.e. your speech violated a speech law).
- justbored123 6y ago
  You are completely missing the point. Because those laws exist, the argument for "free speech" and against censorship is ignorant. We don't have free speech and never had and never will, no country on earth has, because it's ridiculous to the point of been childish. Speech is not free, it has limits, like everything else. And about Alex Jones, the case proves beyond reasonable doubt that he should had been censored to prevent the damage and that is my point. His speech has real life serious consequences that hurt people even if he didn't do it personally and he didn't intended to happen.
  - refurb 6y ago
    No, you're looking at it in too black and white a way. It's not a decision between "no limits to speech at all" and "any limit is fine because free speech doesn't exist". The line, at least in the US, is that all speech is free unless it "incites imminent criminal behavior". And no, the criminal behavior doesn't include criminal speech (that's just circular logic). Yes, the line the US draws favors free speech far more than almost any other country. And that's a part of the ethos of our country. Other countries are free to do whatever they want. And no, Alex Jones shouldn't have been censored (by the government). We don't allow the government to arbitrarily deny citizens rights unless they have been given a fair trial. In his case, a judge decided his speech fell into the realm of defamation and thus his victim was due restitution. And that's how it should work. We don't need "speech police" and we don't need to create new laws to further remove people's rights. If someone oversteps the bounds of free speech then a judge can decide what to do, not Facebook.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      The line in the US is that you are free from retaliation by the government. Private business and private individuals are free to set whatever rules they like about your behavior in their establishments. They're also allowed to just not listen or want to repeat it. If someone shoves a bunch of pamphlets in my hands, I'm allowed to dump them in the trash.

refurb 6y ago

But Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case wasn't censorship (he was free to say what he said), he was sued for defamation. We already have laws on that and all the other stuff you mention child grooming, fraud, false advertisement, doxxing, false testimony, etc. The point is - we have laws for speech that enters the criminal realm.

ephimetheus 6y ago
So how is Volksverhetzung, which is defined by law, any different?
- refurb 6y ago
  That’s a speech law, thus it would be a circular argument (I.e. your speech violated a speech law).
justbored123 6y ago
You are completely missing the point. Because those laws exist, the argument for "free speech" and against censorship is ignorant. We don't have free speech and never had and never will, no country on earth has, because it's ridiculous to the point of been childish. Speech is not free, it has limits, like everything else. And about Alex Jones, the case proves beyond reasonable doubt that he should had been censored to prevent the damage and that is my point. His speech has real life serious consequences that hurt people even if he didn't do it personally and he didn't intended to happen.
- refurb 6y ago
  No, you're looking at it in too black and white a way. It's not a decision between "no limits to speech at all" and "any limit is fine because free speech doesn't exist". The line, at least in the US, is that all speech is free unless it "incites imminent criminal behavior". And no, the criminal behavior doesn't include criminal speech (that's just circular logic). Yes, the line the US draws favors free speech far more than almost any other country. And that's a part of the ethos of our country. Other countries are free to do whatever they want. And no, Alex Jones shouldn't have been censored (by the government). We don't allow the government to arbitrarily deny citizens rights unless they have been given a fair trial. In his case, a judge decided his speech fell into the realm of defamation and thus his victim was due restitution. And that's how it should work. We don't need "speech police" and we don't need to create new laws to further remove people's rights. If someone oversteps the bounds of free speech then a judge can decide what to do, not Facebook.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    The line in the US is that you are free from retaliation by the government. Private business and private individuals are free to set whatever rules they like about your behavior in their establishments. They're also allowed to just not listen or want to repeat it. If someone shoves a bunch of pamphlets in my hands, I'm allowed to dump them in the trash.