6 ms·

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 wis

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...
    - errantmind 5y ago
      I'd argue everyone is (broadly) on a path to authoritarianism, it is just a matter of delaying it as long as possible by refusing to give up ground on basic rights, no matter the reason. It isn't binary though. I'm not saying that political advertising and lobbying are good, but there are other approaches to stopping it without restricting speech, they are just more extreme in the sense they would require structural changes to the democracies themselves. For example, allowing constituents to override their representatives votes if they reach a quorum.. steps that move us closer to a direct democracy.
      - slg 5y ago
        >I'd argue everyone is (broadly) on a path to authoritarianism, it is just a matter of delaying it as long as possible by refusing to give up ground on basic rights, no matter the reason. It isn't binary though. Fair enough. I don't agree with that mindset, but it is certainly a valid one. >I'm not saying that political advertising and lobbying are good, but there are other approaches to stopping it without restricting speech, they are just more extreme in the sense they would require structural changes to the democracies themselves. For example, allowing constituents to override their representatives votes if they reach a quorum.. steps that move us closer to a direct democracy. I don't think there is evidence that direct democracy can overcome this money in politics issue. The most recent example is Prop 22[1] in California. That was voted on by direct democracy. It was also the most expensive Prop in history by a sizable margin. The Yes side won with 58% of the vote. That was at least partially because the rideshare companies spent over $200m which was more than 10x what the No side spent. This also doesn't factor in the non-paid advertising that these companies did natively in their various apps. I don't know how someone could see that $200m spent by corporations with a financial interest in that law passing without thinking of it as some form of corruption. [1] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

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...
  - errantmind 5y ago
    I'd argue everyone is (broadly) on a path to authoritarianism, it is just a matter of delaying it as long as possible by refusing to give up ground on basic rights, no matter the reason. It isn't binary though. I'm not saying that political advertising and lobbying are good, but there are other approaches to stopping it without restricting speech, they are just more extreme in the sense they would require structural changes to the democracies themselves. For example, allowing constituents to override their representatives votes if they reach a quorum.. steps that move us closer to a direct democracy.
    - slg 5y ago
      >I'd argue everyone is (broadly) on a path to authoritarianism, it is just a matter of delaying it as long as possible by refusing to give up ground on basic rights, no matter the reason. It isn't binary though. Fair enough. I don't agree with that mindset, but it is certainly a valid one. >I'm not saying that political advertising and lobbying are good, but there are other approaches to stopping it without restricting speech, they are just more extreme in the sense they would require structural changes to the democracies themselves. For example, allowing constituents to override their representatives votes if they reach a quorum.. steps that move us closer to a direct democracy. I don't think there is evidence that direct democracy can overcome this money in politics issue. The most recent example is Prop 22[1] in California. That was voted on by direct democracy. It was also the most expensive Prop in history by a sizable margin. The Yes side won with 58% of the vote. That was at least partially because the rideshare companies spent over $200m which was more than 10x what the No side spent. This also doesn't factor in the non-paid advertising that these companies did natively in their various apps. I don't know how someone could see that $200m spent by corporations with a financial interest in that law passing without thinking of it as some form of corruption. [1] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...