3 ms·

I'd had assumed that you would want to give an answer that clarifies your stated position instead of deflecting and sending me off to https://rationalwiki.org/w

I'd had assumed that you would want to give an answer that clarifies your stated position instead of deflecting and sending me off to https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research. If one's position is "I think our court system does a good job of defining this already", one should be able to point to an established definition that doesn't also apply equally to many other antiregulated contexts. Otherwise what the court system is doing a good job of is not "defining". > Unfortunately, speech laws are not a topic that you can learn in an afternoon. Laws are numerous and capricious. I'm not asking about laws. I'm not even asking about history. I'm asking about any existing philosophical position that differentiates what we _should_ restrict from what we _should not_ restrict. If we start from the notion that capital-F Fraud is bad, which we must since we regulate it, surely we should be able to say why it is so and apply the same reason elsewhere.

stale2002 5y ago
Oh, the stated position is quite clear. The stated position is that you are going to be completely unable to understand, in an afternoon, the nuances of a topic, for which people spend their lives studying. Thus, if you actually care about the topic, you need to read the supreme court cases or the numerous literature on the topic. Otherwise, you are not going to be able to understand what the supreme court even does, or why they do it, when there is thousands of pages of reasoning, on this stuff. > surely we should be able to say why it is so and apply the same reason elsewhere And I am saying that such discussions require you to actually read the primary sources here, which is books and books, and court case after court case. Sorry, but complicated topics are not solved by people debating a paragraph here and there. Yes, you will actually have to take a class on this, or read books on this, to understand it. Sorry, that's just life. When you ask extremely general and expansive questions, about philosophy, such as "what is the difference between different speech", unfortunately these are topic for which there is lifetimes of work discussing it, and you are not going to be able to have a debate in a couple paragraphs on it.

stale2002 5y ago

Oh, the stated position is quite clear. The stated position is that you are going to be completely unable to understand, in an afternoon, the nuances of a topic, for which people spend their lives studying. Thus, if you actually care about the topic, you need to read the supreme court cases or the numerous literature on the topic. Otherwise, you are not going to be able to understand what the supreme court even does, or why they do it, when there is thousands of pages of reasoning, on this stuff. > surely we should be able to say why it is so and apply the same reason elsewhere And I am saying that such discussions require you to actually read the primary sources here, which is books and books, and court case after court case. Sorry, but complicated topics are not solved by people debating a paragraph here and there. Yes, you will actually have to take a class on this, or read books on this, to understand it. Sorry, that's just life. When you ask extremely general and expansive questions, about philosophy, such as "what is the difference between different speech", unfortunately these are topic for which there is lifetimes of work discussing it, and you are not going to be able to have a debate in a couple paragraphs on it.