3 ms·

> ...resorting to First Amendment absolutism is intellectually lazy at best. It feels like having a nice solid black&white answer, but it is not, since the resu

> ...resorting to First Amendment absolutism is intellectually lazy at best. It feels like having a nice solid black&white answer, but it is not, since the result of the answer is the destruction of society. That's quite an assertion, but I notice you back it up with nothing at all. What you describe as the libertarian version is the non-cartoon version of "First Amendment absolutism": you can say what you want, but you're not immune from demonstrable consequences of what you say. There's nothing in that position that requires or suggests that people should be coercively prevented from speech that is unpopular, incomplete, or incorrect. In that light, the objections you present mostly fail to address my point. The only exception is your extension of the FDA and FTC rules regarding food and drug advertising to non-advertising speech, which would present a lot of practical problems, creating a vast opening for frivolous and harassing lawsuits against public figures and discouraging the expression of much valid and worthwhile opinion. I'd oppose it, and I can't imagine that it would find support outside the sort of election-year rhetoric that evaporates on contact with reality.

toss1 5y ago
Right, so you are perfectly fine with allowing deliberate disinformation campaigns to run rampant even when they literally kill people, and backing it up with nothing at all. And not even seeking a solution. Got it Are you also against regulating speech that amounts to yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater and/or inciting a riot or insurrection? I could also say 'fine, if intentional disinformation kills people, that's fine, let them go at it, it is just a stupidity tax' Except I also understand the value of a society that is at least minimally cohesive and retains a stably democratic (small-d) foundation, and see the hard evidence that active disinformation amplified by mass media, especially interactive mass media can completely undermine that, and is literally a direct threat to democracy. I'm interested in finding a solution and it will need to be more refined than a simple absolutist edict written centuries before mass media and interactive mass media were invented.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  When someone insists on redefining your position before they'll argue with it, it's a sure sign they have a position they'd like to attribute to you and argue with instead. You've done that twice. I'm not interested.

toss1 5y ago

Right, so you are perfectly fine with allowing deliberate disinformation campaigns to run rampant even when they literally kill people, and backing it up with nothing at all. And not even seeking a solution. Got it Are you also against regulating speech that amounts to yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater and/or inciting a riot or insurrection? I could also say 'fine, if intentional disinformation kills people, that's fine, let them go at it, it is just a stupidity tax' Except I also understand the value of a society that is at least minimally cohesive and retains a stably democratic (small-d) foundation, and see the hard evidence that active disinformation amplified by mass media, especially interactive mass media can completely undermine that, and is literally a direct threat to democracy. I'm interested in finding a solution and it will need to be more refined than a simple absolutist edict written centuries before mass media and interactive mass media were invented.

JasonFruit 5y ago
When someone insists on redefining your position before they'll argue with it, it's a sure sign they have a position they'd like to attribute to you and argue with instead. You've done that twice. I'm not interested.