4 ms·

"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech." Benjamin Franklin Bringing

"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech." Benjamin Franklin Bringing up the first amendment is a way to emphasize the importance of the free exchange of ideas. It only legally restrains the government, but now other powers have gained the ability to regulate speech. The principle is the same no matter who the censor is.

SantalBlush 5y ago
Conflating social media bans with a government's ability to punish citizens over speech is utterly absurd. The real complaint here is that folks want to express their opinions on a site with the biggest reach, and if they are relegated to a smaller site (of which there are many) then they pretend their rights are being violated. This notion is itself as anti-free speech as it gets.
- a_conservative 5y ago
  The free exchange of ideas can be curtailed by other powerful entities other than government. This is still a problem for society. For example, look at how the lab-leak hypothesis for covid was censored. There were many good questions being raised that were shot down as a "conspiracy theory", and were censored. This is a net negative for everyone.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    The free exchange of ideas is curtailed everywhere, all the time. It's curtailed in private homes, in the workplace, and on social media. It has always been this way. Our first amendment right has never guaranteed the free exchange of ideas, because people have the right to reject such exchanges on their own property. Your issue and the issue shared by many others comes from a complete misunderstanding of what freedom of speech entails. It does not mean people should be forced to listen to you; that would be a horrifying dystopia that I want no part of.
    - a_conservative 5y ago
      You keep making assumptions about me. You don't know me. I made no such statements about the first amendment. However you justify censorship, it still has a cost. Legalistic arguments about the first amendment and who it restrains doesn't change the fact that the free exchange of ideas has value and that is being taken away from us. Note that I'm not specifying who is doing the censoring in any of my arguments. Censorship has a cost all on it's own.
      - SantalBlush 5y ago
        It's not about being legalistic. Some people believe the idea of free speech means that others should be forced to listen to them or carry their message. This is false, and anti-free speech.
        a_conservative 5y ago
        Thanks for the response, I'm not making that argument. Platforms are legally within their rights to censor posts they don't like. My point is that this comes with a cost. If we sit a team down to discuss the architecture of a software application or how to solve a problem in a general, is it better to get all opinions or for some opinions to be forbidden? I believe the answer is it depends. If someone is being destructive to general collaboration, then censoring them would likely help the group reach a better decision. If the censorship goes further and prohibits certain ideas, what is the cost? If it's a bad idea, probably not too much. What if it's a good idea? What if it's an idea that would have halved the effort for this particular solution? The cost of censorship starts to increase! How do you know the value of an opinion that you don't hear? Silencing dissent is a component of group think. I found this example which shouldn't be controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Sports
        SantalBlush 5y ago
        You keep saying "I'm not making that argument." If you're not making any arguments that are relevant to this particular thread about slippery slopes and overreaching governments, I'm not sure why you replied to me in the first place. Simply saying that censorship comes with a cost is so obvious and broad that it's not much of a contribution.

SantalBlush 5y ago

Conflating social media bans with a government's ability to punish citizens over speech is utterly absurd. The real complaint here is that folks want to express their opinions on a site with the biggest reach, and if they are relegated to a smaller site (of which there are many) then they pretend their rights are being violated. This notion is itself as anti-free speech as it gets.

a_conservative 5y ago
The free exchange of ideas can be curtailed by other powerful entities other than government. This is still a problem for society. For example, look at how the lab-leak hypothesis for covid was censored. There were many good questions being raised that were shot down as a "conspiracy theory", and were censored. This is a net negative for everyone.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  The free exchange of ideas is curtailed everywhere, all the time. It's curtailed in private homes, in the workplace, and on social media. It has always been this way. Our first amendment right has never guaranteed the free exchange of ideas, because people have the right to reject such exchanges on their own property. Your issue and the issue shared by many others comes from a complete misunderstanding of what freedom of speech entails. It does not mean people should be forced to listen to you; that would be a horrifying dystopia that I want no part of.
  - a_conservative 5y ago
    You keep making assumptions about me. You don't know me. I made no such statements about the first amendment. However you justify censorship, it still has a cost. Legalistic arguments about the first amendment and who it restrains doesn't change the fact that the free exchange of ideas has value and that is being taken away from us. Note that I'm not specifying who is doing the censoring in any of my arguments. Censorship has a cost all on it's own.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      It's not about being legalistic. Some people believe the idea of free speech means that others should be forced to listen to them or carry their message. This is false, and anti-free speech.
      - a_conservative 5y ago
        Thanks for the response, I'm not making that argument. Platforms are legally within their rights to censor posts they don't like. My point is that this comes with a cost. If we sit a team down to discuss the architecture of a software application or how to solve a problem in a general, is it better to get all opinions or for some opinions to be forbidden? I believe the answer is it depends. If someone is being destructive to general collaboration, then censoring them would likely help the group reach a better decision. If the censorship goes further and prohibits certain ideas, what is the cost? If it's a bad idea, probably not too much. What if it's a good idea? What if it's an idea that would have halved the effort for this particular solution? The cost of censorship starts to increase! How do you know the value of an opinion that you don't hear? Silencing dissent is a component of group think. I found this example which shouldn't be controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Sports
        SantalBlush 5y ago
        You keep saying "I'm not making that argument." If you're not making any arguments that are relevant to this particular thread about slippery slopes and overreaching governments, I'm not sure why you replied to me in the first place. Simply saying that censorship comes with a cost is so obvious and broad that it's not much of a contribution.