6 ms·

> Despite free speech laws, it has always, and under pretty much every legal system, still been illegal to utter certain types of speech, such as yelling "FIRE!

by anjbe 5y ago

> Despite free speech laws, it has always, and under pretty much every legal system, still been illegal to utter certain types of speech, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or inciting riot. It is never absolutely free. And that sentiment—that very example, even—has been used to justify expansive restrictions on speech that nobody would or should put up with today, such as opposing the military draft. “When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. United States

toss1 5y ago
Of course that sentiment (against yelling "FIRE!") has been misused, just as with any sentiment. Similarly, the "No Censorship Ever!" sentiment is being abused to justify spreading weaponized dezinformatsiya at massive scale and speed, resulting in literally killing people (starting w/deluded COVID victims and Rohinga muslims,+++), for profit. That is THE POINT here - that it can not be absolute in either direction, and we, as a society, must do the work of striking the right balance. And no, it is not an argument that "there was also bad stuff before" (e.g., yellow journalism), so it must be OK now.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > Of course that sentiment (against yelling "FIRE!") has been misused, just as with any sentiment. Except in this case, the origin of that phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a US Supreme Court Case in 1919 that upheld the prosecution of of an anti-war protestor for pamphleting against the draft. This is the approach to free speech that is being referenced when people use this phrase in argument. > Similarly, the "No Censorship Ever!" sentiment is being abused to justify spreading weaponized dezinformatsiya at massive scale and speed, resulting in literally killing people (starting w/deluded COVID victims and Rohinga muslims,+++), for profit. For someone arguing against absolutism, you see to think in very absolutist terms about supporters of free speech. Very few advocates of free speech advocate for no restrictions on speech. Censorship should not be the first tool you reach to do deal with misinformation. Algorithmic censorship carries huge risks and can cause great damage, much like algorithmic amplification. Censoring alleged misinformation and propaganda is a common and widely used tactic of authoritarian governments around the world. Normalizing that censorship makes it easier for am authoritarian leaning administration to push us in that direction. It is extremely dangerous.

by anjbe 5y ago

toss1 5y ago

Of course that sentiment (against yelling "FIRE!") has been misused, just as with any sentiment. Similarly, the "No Censorship Ever!" sentiment is being abused to justify spreading weaponized dezinformatsiya at massive scale and speed, resulting in literally killing people (starting w/deluded COVID victims and Rohinga muslims,+++), for profit. That is THE POINT here - that it can not be absolute in either direction, and we, as a society, must do the work of striking the right balance. And no, it is not an argument that "there was also bad stuff before" (e.g., yellow journalism), so it must be OK now.

shkkmo 5y ago
> Of course that sentiment (against yelling "FIRE!") has been misused, just as with any sentiment. Except in this case, the origin of that phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a US Supreme Court Case in 1919 that upheld the prosecution of of an anti-war protestor for pamphleting against the draft. This is the approach to free speech that is being referenced when people use this phrase in argument. > Similarly, the "No Censorship Ever!" sentiment is being abused to justify spreading weaponized dezinformatsiya at massive scale and speed, resulting in literally killing people (starting w/deluded COVID victims and Rohinga muslims,+++), for profit. For someone arguing against absolutism, you see to think in very absolutist terms about supporters of free speech. Very few advocates of free speech advocate for no restrictions on speech. Censorship should not be the first tool you reach to do deal with misinformation. Algorithmic censorship carries huge risks and can cause great damage, much like algorithmic amplification. Censoring alleged misinformation and propaganda is a common and widely used tactic of authoritarian governments around the world. Normalizing that censorship makes it easier for am authoritarian leaning administration to push us in that direction. It is extremely dangerous.