3 ms·

I’m sure some time from now a different government won’t try to “counteract” some other threat with even more draconian measures. And it definitely can’t be the

• pas 5y ago
  I'm not saying what's happening is good. I'm stating it as a matter of fact. As you (cynically, but likely correctly) note that such authorizations tend to lead to very serious abuses of power. But it's also important to see that there are many countries on the planet that do exist with those draconian measures, without those getting abused. (Again, I'm not saying getting complacent about this is desirable. Quite the opposite.) It's pretty much evident that real free speech can only exist in a society where basic needs are unconditionally guaranteed, and so on. ("I disagree, but I'd defend your right to say it." is great, as long as there is literally exactly zero probability that it might backfire on you. Because the moment there's a non-zero probability there's a non-zero chilling effect.) There are, of course, various workarounds for these problems caused by a too oppressive/powerful majority, but the way to implement them start with letting go of the simple, but wrong idea that there free speech is simple and it can be simply free. (And similarly it'd be good to kill other useless idols like the "national security" one, that is routinely used to suppress speech. And then the "think of the children" one, which is again used to oppress, and so on.)