3 ms·

[citation needed] That's a pretty bold statement. I'm pro free speech, but believe it should have limits in a civilized society. I don't know what the answer i

[citation needed] That's a pretty bold statement. I'm pro free speech, but believe it should have limits in a civilized society. I don't know what the answer is, or where the line should be but entirely unrestricted free speech isn't the infalable utopia that the US is conditioned to believe.

brigandish 6y ago
Shall we begin with some egregious examples and go from there? How is Nazi Germany doing? Or East Germany? Soviet Russia? Clearly there's an impossible hump of correlation/causation, but that doesn't mean we can't show at least part of the data set to be true - that you are far more likely to fail or be a horrible place to live. > entirely unrestricted free speech isn't the infalable utopia that the US is conditioned to believe It wouldn't be a utopia, it would just be better than the alternative, like most liberties. Utopianism is a vision that is associated with a lack of freedom and collectivism (large scale collectivism necessarily entails curtailed freedom), not with enhanced liberty. > I'm pro free speech, but believe it should have limits in a civilized society To be civilised implies two things, primarily: - greater learning - better manners That you can learn more where information is unrestricted should need no explanation. As to manners, what better sign of good manners and civility can there be when you may say whatever you like without fear of punishment and yet you remain civil? Hence, a more civilised society has less limits on what you can say and imbues its citizens with greater responsibility to practise that speech well.
- maxehmookau 6y ago
  I agree with pretty much everything you say. However your last sentence is where the problem lies. > and imbues its citizens with greater responsibility to practise that speech well. Name me a western country that does this. Until it does, and until that type of education (critical and logical reasoning) is embedded in the fabric of our societies sensible limits on free speech (such as hate speech) are probably a reasonable compromise.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > Name me a western country that does this. The more freedom "given", the more this is done, so the answer is all of them to greater or lesser degrees. > until that type of education (critical and logical reasoning) is embedded in the fabric of our societies Free speech is the embedding of critical thinking - do you see more critical thinking in societies riven with censorship and the suppression of speech? Are there less lies in societies that supress speech? There could be the same amount but there's definitely not less - why bother to suppress it in the first place if there's not a lie to protect? > sensible limits on free speech (such as hate speech) are probably a reasonable compromise. That's as close to a classic begging the question as you can get. The "sensible limits" and "reasonable compromise" are the same thing, and you're yet to show that hate speech is: a) harmful to society b) able to be defined any better than any dictator in history has managed

brigandish 6y ago

Shall we begin with some egregious examples and go from there? How is Nazi Germany doing? Or East Germany? Soviet Russia? Clearly there's an impossible hump of correlation/causation, but that doesn't mean we can't show at least part of the data set to be true - that you are far more likely to fail or be a horrible place to live. > entirely unrestricted free speech isn't the infalable utopia that the US is conditioned to believe It wouldn't be a utopia, it would just be better than the alternative, like most liberties. Utopianism is a vision that is associated with a lack of freedom and collectivism (large scale collectivism necessarily entails curtailed freedom), not with enhanced liberty. > I'm pro free speech, but believe it should have limits in a civilized society To be civilised implies two things, primarily: - greater learning - better manners That you can learn more where information is unrestricted should need no explanation. As to manners, what better sign of good manners and civility can there be when you may say whatever you like without fear of punishment and yet you remain civil? Hence, a more civilised society has less limits on what you can say and imbues its citizens with greater responsibility to practise that speech well.

maxehmookau 6y ago
I agree with pretty much everything you say. However your last sentence is where the problem lies. > and imbues its citizens with greater responsibility to practise that speech well. Name me a western country that does this. Until it does, and until that type of education (critical and logical reasoning) is embedded in the fabric of our societies sensible limits on free speech (such as hate speech) are probably a reasonable compromise.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > Name me a western country that does this. The more freedom "given", the more this is done, so the answer is all of them to greater or lesser degrees. > until that type of education (critical and logical reasoning) is embedded in the fabric of our societies Free speech is the embedding of critical thinking - do you see more critical thinking in societies riven with censorship and the suppression of speech? Are there less lies in societies that supress speech? There could be the same amount but there's definitely not less - why bother to suppress it in the first place if there's not a lie to protect? > sensible limits on free speech (such as hate speech) are probably a reasonable compromise. That's as close to a classic begging the question as you can get. The "sensible limits" and "reasonable compromise" are the same thing, and you're yet to show that hate speech is: a) harmful to society b) able to be defined any better than any dictator in history has managed