4 ms·

Banning lying means allowing the government to determine the truth. Many, if not all, dictatorships ban the truth under the guise of banning the truth.

hayst4ck 6y ago
I think that kind of depends on how it is enforced. If the government is defining an authoritative truth and enforcing it, I think that's definitely the authoritarian route that every American is taught is bad. If a jury of peers is determining that someone lied, that seems pretty reasonable to me. It can be illegal to lie on purpose without the government determining the truth or enforcing "the truth". The court system would almost certainly require that not only did an entity deliberately lie, but direct harm was caused that exceeds the harm done to freedom of speech. The US free speech system already divides speech into high value and low value speech. Political opinions in America are considered high value and are probably the most protected speech in the world. Do you think direct lies or manipulations should be considered high value speech? If you have a scale for "value of speech" that starts with illicit pornography on one end and political speech on the other, where would you put: "fire!" in a crowded theater, advertisements/commercial speech, opinions, direct lies, direct manipulation, medical lies (this sugar pill cures cancer), etc. What about labels on food. Should a company be able to list 0 calories on their ice cream? How much should this idea of "speech" be unbend-able, how narrowly or broadly should the word "speech" or "press" be defined? If we have a class like "food" that requires true nutrition labels to protect the integrity of food, and we have have scheduled medicines that require "active ingredients," to protect the integrity of medicine, why is the idea of news regulation to protect the integrity of news so provoking? There is no black and white when it comes to this issue. America's free speech almost lost us our democracy to an authoritarian who would have assuredly decreased our human rights and ended the idea of free speech. In philosophical terms, our free speech as it exists right now is very likely a "contradiction". If free speech exits to prevent authoritarian destruction of human rights, but it also allows for an authoritarian to seize power, is the basis of free speech in tact? How do you protect the integrity of the system?
- pluc 6y ago
  When it comes to America, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Americans are so worried about losing their freedom that they'll sacrifice their freedom in order to keep it, all the while never realizing that they've been free all along.
kristopolous 6y ago
There's falsifiability, testability, verifiability, lots of ways to determine if something is real. Zero trust systems for reality discovery is essentially what the scientific revolution is based on. We know how to do it

hayst4ck 6y ago

I think that kind of depends on how it is enforced. If the government is defining an authoritative truth and enforcing it, I think that's definitely the authoritarian route that every American is taught is bad. If a jury of peers is determining that someone lied, that seems pretty reasonable to me. It can be illegal to lie on purpose without the government determining the truth or enforcing "the truth". The court system would almost certainly require that not only did an entity deliberately lie, but direct harm was caused that exceeds the harm done to freedom of speech. The US free speech system already divides speech into high value and low value speech. Political opinions in America are considered high value and are probably the most protected speech in the world. Do you think direct lies or manipulations should be considered high value speech? If you have a scale for "value of speech" that starts with illicit pornography on one end and political speech on the other, where would you put: "fire!" in a crowded theater, advertisements/commercial speech, opinions, direct lies, direct manipulation, medical lies (this sugar pill cures cancer), etc. What about labels on food. Should a company be able to list 0 calories on their ice cream? How much should this idea of "speech" be unbend-able, how narrowly or broadly should the word "speech" or "press" be defined? If we have a class like "food" that requires true nutrition labels to protect the integrity of food, and we have have scheduled medicines that require "active ingredients," to protect the integrity of medicine, why is the idea of news regulation to protect the integrity of news so provoking? There is no black and white when it comes to this issue. America's free speech almost lost us our democracy to an authoritarian who would have assuredly decreased our human rights and ended the idea of free speech. In philosophical terms, our free speech as it exists right now is very likely a "contradiction". If free speech exits to prevent authoritarian destruction of human rights, but it also allows for an authoritarian to seize power, is the basis of free speech in tact? How do you protect the integrity of the system?

pluc 6y ago
When it comes to America, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Americans are so worried about losing their freedom that they'll sacrifice their freedom in order to keep it, all the while never realizing that they've been free all along.

kristopolous 6y ago

There's falsifiability, testability, verifiability, lots of ways to determine if something is real. Zero trust systems for reality discovery is essentially what the scientific revolution is based on. We know how to do it