3 ms·

I don't think it's society's job to engineer the non-violent and non-criminal behavior of its members but one thing that comes to mind to try: working to build

I don't think it's society's job to engineer the non-violent and non-criminal behavior of its members but one thing that comes to mind to try: working to build a society that's worth their constructive participation rather than one where speaking their minds lands them in custody. Not to mention your position is incredibly myopic. If the government defines offense then what you're suggesting is basically a system where offense is conjured up to censor on behalf of the party that currently enjoys power. This may target your enemies today, but your friends tomorrow.

mxkopy 5y ago
Any society of sufficient size will attract trolls who don't care about the worth of the society. I think politics and government are intertwined as a matter of history, not as a matter of inevitable fact. Political rivals can disagree and use systems to disenfranchise one another, but they can also agree on some norms of decency (in an ideal world these would align with their constituents, but as a matter of history they tend to be the norms of some established elite). If you want to call my position myopic, look at Jan 6th and what the lack of censorship had done then. There is plenty of harm caused by deliberately not censoring some things, as it gives a chance for malicious groups to grow. What I think is myopic is the overall attitude "censorship bad, free speech good." It's incredibly individualistic and could only exist in the experiment that is the U.S. Also: the line between nonviolent and violent behavior is, as all other lines, fairly blurry. Do we censor attempts to incite riots under free speech? If so, why do we not also censor statements that promote a culture of hating society?