4 ms·

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 pra

• 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