3 ms·
There shouldn't be any legal description of "disinformation" in a country with free speech protections. ALL skepticism is crucial. Even ridiculous viewpoints s
by bequanna 5y ago
There shouldn't be any legal description of "disinformation" in a country with free speech protections.
ALL skepticism is crucial. Even ridiculous viewpoints should see the light of day to allow them to be investigated or dismissed.
The push to suppress opposing views is really only coming from one direction right now. If someone supports limiting free speech, I can probably guess which political party they identify with.
Like every other attack on rights, the stated goals are always very noble: "limit hate speech", "stop disinformation", etc. Cute. But behind those reasons, we're all aware of the real goal: silence anyone who opposes your views.
- NeoLaval 5y agoTo defend free speech you need to fight propaganda. Propaganda is literally the opposite of free speech. People being paid to say this or that is not free speech.
- bequanna 5y agoOf course it is. Just because you don’t like it or find it distasteful doesn’t mean it isn’t free speech. How about people who are compensated to promote COVID vaccinations? Should that be disallowed? The problem is who determines what is “truth” or allowable speech. Do you really want to live in a country where the party in power gets to decide this?
- slibhb 5y agoThe opposite of free speech is censorship, not propaganda. Lying is not illegal.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]