5 ms·

>there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society. How do you feel about copyright? Or false advertising? Or slander? Or bribery

by slg 5y ago

>there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society. How do you feel about copyright? Or false advertising? Or slander? Or bribery? Or harassment? Or threats of violence? Or conspiracies to commit crime? Or revenge porn? Or child porn? It is so weird when people pretend that free speech is binary considering we already outlaw so many different forms of speech. Free speech is a spectrum and there is valid debate on where on the spectrum we draw the line. Germany happens to be draw the line in a difference place than the US but that doesn't mean they aren't a "free society".

errantmind 5y ago
There is a lot to unpack there, and I don't have time to expound on all those individually, but I'd come down as more of a hardliner on the side of free speech while letting other societal mechanisms moderate the extremes to varying degrees. The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument but given the historical evidence I believe it is warranted.
- slg 5y ago
  The US is at an extreme in where it draws the line on free speech compared to other western democracies. Would you say that every other western democracy is on the path to authoritarianism because they drew the line somewhere else?
  - errantmind 5y ago
    I can't say they are without looking into them individually. How can you expect me to know one way or another? Do you claim to know? My point was it may be wise to err on the side of history and what your eyes tell you about the nature of politics in modern democracies. I don't want my fundamental rights subject to political whims and opportunism. Also, I don't think there is anything extreme about the US's free speech laws. What do you think is extreme about them?
    - slg 5y ago
      Hate speech, political advertising, and lobbying are some of the big types of speech that are heavily restricted in other western democracies compared to the US. You said previously that "there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society" and "The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism." I took those two statements as implying that countries that have "compromised" in comparison to the US will have trouble "maintaining a free society" and are pushing "for less freedom, not more" and that therefore they have begun "a slow slide into authoritarianism."
      - errantmind 5y ago
        I'm opposed to banning `hate speech` solely because it is vague and likely ineffective against stopping hate. The vague-ness is open for abuse, depending on the political winds. I would say this is definitely is a step towards authoritarianism. As for political advertising and lobbying, those seem like bandages for the larger issue of people blatantly ignoring political corruption and paying attention to political advertising. Has banning / limiting those had any great effect?
        slg 5y ago
        Canada, Australia, and basically all of Europe have restrictions on hate speech. So going back to my previous question, it sounds like you are saying that most western democracies are already on the path to authoritarianism. I think many of the people in those same countries would also say that our relatively unrestricted allowance of political advertising and lobbying is what leads to the corruption. It shifts the importance from the size of one's constituency to the wealth of one's constituency. That is generally bad for the health of democracy as noted by the US dropping in international rankings of the world's democracies[1]. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-democracy-rankings-freedom-house-new-low https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-dem...
        5y ago
raxxorrax 5y ago
This is a dishonest argument.

by slg 5y ago

errantmind 5y ago

There is a lot to unpack there, and I don't have time to expound on all those individually, but I'd come down as more of a hardliner on the side of free speech while letting other societal mechanisms moderate the extremes to varying degrees. The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument but given the historical evidence I believe it is warranted.

slg 5y ago
The US is at an extreme in where it draws the line on free speech compared to other western democracies. Would you say that every other western democracy is on the path to authoritarianism because they drew the line somewhere else?
- errantmind 5y ago
  I can't say they are without looking into them individually. How can you expect me to know one way or another? Do you claim to know? My point was it may be wise to err on the side of history and what your eyes tell you about the nature of politics in modern democracies. I don't want my fundamental rights subject to political whims and opportunism. Also, I don't think there is anything extreme about the US's free speech laws. What do you think is extreme about them?
  - slg 5y ago
    Hate speech, political advertising, and lobbying are some of the big types of speech that are heavily restricted in other western democracies compared to the US. You said previously that "there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society" and "The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism." I took those two statements as implying that countries that have "compromised" in comparison to the US will have trouble "maintaining a free society" and are pushing "for less freedom, not more" and that therefore they have begun "a slow slide into authoritarianism."
    - errantmind 5y ago
      I'm opposed to banning `hate speech` solely because it is vague and likely ineffective against stopping hate. The vague-ness is open for abuse, depending on the political winds. I would say this is definitely is a step towards authoritarianism. As for political advertising and lobbying, those seem like bandages for the larger issue of people blatantly ignoring political corruption and paying attention to political advertising. Has banning / limiting those had any great effect?
      - slg 5y ago
        Canada, Australia, and basically all of Europe have restrictions on hate speech. So going back to my previous question, it sounds like you are saying that most western democracies are already on the path to authoritarianism. I think many of the people in those same countries would also say that our relatively unrestricted allowance of political advertising and lobbying is what leads to the corruption. It shifts the importance from the size of one's constituency to the wealth of one's constituency. That is generally bad for the health of democracy as noted by the US dropping in international rankings of the world's democracies[1]. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-democracy-rankings-freedom-house-new-low https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-dem...
        5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago

This is a dishonest argument.