4 ms·

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

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

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...