38 ms·

I'll worry the moment the state makes expression of ideas illegal. When it comes to private vehicles for speech, the right to amplify or attenuate speech carri

I'll worry the moment the state makes expression of ideas illegal. When it comes to private vehicles for speech, the right to amplify or attenuate speech carried on these vehicles is itself a free speech right. Newspapers can exercise editorial judgment. Forums can create policies. These policies can be regarding how discourse is conducted, they can even be topical. Your Math Professor can shut down your classmate's extemporaneous treatise about the gold standard taking up time in linear algebra class. Time, place, and manner matter. Everyone has a right and a responsibility to curate conversation in a way that serves the discourse for their sphere of influence -- except the state itself. Everyone also has the right and responsibility to create a new forum or sphere to discuss ideas they feel aren't being poorly served elsewhere. Or, if they wish, any ideas without limitation at all.

Pxtl 5y ago
> I'll worry the moment the state makes expression of ideas illegal. Uh, we already do that. Fraud, defamation, uttering threats, false advertising, perjury, filing a false report, etc. At this point the distinction that matters is what we choose to protect from such ideas. "Keira Knightly is anorexic" is an idea that is illegal -- https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/may/24/dailymail.pressandpublishing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/may/24/dailymail.pres... "Climate change is fake" is, apparently, not one.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > Uh, we already do that. Fraud, defamation, uttering threats, false advertising, perjury, filing a false report, etc. Sometimes I think "free speech" is a misnomer, and the common phrase should be "freedom of discourse." Fraud, defamation, threats, perjury etc aren't really discourse. They don't serve ideas (and in fact, tend to do violence to ideas). In any case, you're correct that 1st amendment and other free speech rights are not unlimited indulgences that excuse one from certain legal obligations to be truthful, or to not threaten. In spite of this, the US and most industrialized democracies remain remarkably supportive of freedom of discourse from a state perspective.
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    The question is where's the line? --- 1) "I'm skeptical about climate change" 2) "Climate science is obviously very wrong, the Earth is changing on its own." 3) "Climate change is fake and it's a conspiracy" 4) "Climate change is fake because George Soros is trying to hurt America so his secret Jewish cabal can rule the world" 5) "Climate change is fake because George Soros is trying to hurt America so his secret Jewish cabal can rule the world and here are specific plans for the violence necessary to stop it" --- We cross the line into "not truthful" at 2. Moderation doesn't take it seriously until 4. Law enforcement doesn't take it seriously until 5, if ever.
    - themitigating 5y ago
      The difference between a fact and an opinion. 1 and 2 are opinions 3, 4, and 5 are false An opinion can't be falsifiable
      - midwitedu 5y ago
        The theoretical ability to falsify something (or to prove it) has no bearing on the realities of propaganda, extensive domain knowledge or the lack thereof, and how such positions are ultimately arrived at. Namely, trust in the institutions. How many facts that form the bedrock of your worldview have you, personally, verified? Have you, personally, walked down the chain of evidence for certain scientific (i.e. falsifiable) claims and personally attempted to falsify them? I didn't think so.
    - wwweston 5y ago
      Moderation in a private vehicle for speech could take it seriously at any stage they choose (and I'd argue that the freedom to decide where the line is inside private stewardship is in fact part of freedom of discourse). And there probably should be forums which have content standards based on truth according to the best efforts of those running the place to determine the truth. Perhaps not every forum should be that way, but some could be, and I think that's the standard that things like scientific journals aspire to. #4/#5 -- I have questions about whether police/executive enforcement should be directly dealing with cases like this, but it certainly seems to me that people would be within their freedom of discourse rights to take someone making those statements to court. And courts are also places where questions of truth/fact are taken seriously along with questions of law, and obligation to be truthful solidly outweighs any freedom some might imagine they have to lie.

Pxtl 5y ago

> I'll worry the moment the state makes expression of ideas illegal. Uh, we already do that. Fraud, defamation, uttering threats, false advertising, perjury, filing a false report, etc. At this point the distinction that matters is what we choose to protect from such ideas. "Keira Knightly is anorexic" is an idea that is illegal -- https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/may/24/dailymail.pressandpublishing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/may/24/dailymail.pres... "Climate change is fake" is, apparently, not one.

wwweston 5y ago
> Uh, we already do that. Fraud, defamation, uttering threats, false advertising, perjury, filing a false report, etc. Sometimes I think "free speech" is a misnomer, and the common phrase should be "freedom of discourse." Fraud, defamation, threats, perjury etc aren't really discourse. They don't serve ideas (and in fact, tend to do violence to ideas). In any case, you're correct that 1st amendment and other free speech rights are not unlimited indulgences that excuse one from certain legal obligations to be truthful, or to not threaten. In spite of this, the US and most industrialized democracies remain remarkably supportive of freedom of discourse from a state perspective.
- Pxtl 5y ago
  The question is where's the line? --- 1) "I'm skeptical about climate change" 2) "Climate science is obviously very wrong, the Earth is changing on its own." 3) "Climate change is fake and it's a conspiracy" 4) "Climate change is fake because George Soros is trying to hurt America so his secret Jewish cabal can rule the world" 5) "Climate change is fake because George Soros is trying to hurt America so his secret Jewish cabal can rule the world and here are specific plans for the violence necessary to stop it" --- We cross the line into "not truthful" at 2. Moderation doesn't take it seriously until 4. Law enforcement doesn't take it seriously until 5, if ever.
  - themitigating 5y ago
    The difference between a fact and an opinion. 1 and 2 are opinions 3, 4, and 5 are false An opinion can't be falsifiable
    - midwitedu 5y ago
      The theoretical ability to falsify something (or to prove it) has no bearing on the realities of propaganda, extensive domain knowledge or the lack thereof, and how such positions are ultimately arrived at. Namely, trust in the institutions. How many facts that form the bedrock of your worldview have you, personally, verified? Have you, personally, walked down the chain of evidence for certain scientific (i.e. falsifiable) claims and personally attempted to falsify them? I didn't think so.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    Moderation in a private vehicle for speech could take it seriously at any stage they choose (and I'd argue that the freedom to decide where the line is inside private stewardship is in fact part of freedom of discourse). And there probably should be forums which have content standards based on truth according to the best efforts of those running the place to determine the truth. Perhaps not every forum should be that way, but some could be, and I think that's the standard that things like scientific journals aspire to. #4/#5 -- I have questions about whether police/executive enforcement should be directly dealing with cases like this, but it certainly seems to me that people would be within their freedom of discourse rights to take someone making those statements to court. And courts are also places where questions of truth/fact are taken seriously along with questions of law, and obligation to be truthful solidly outweighs any freedom some might imagine they have to lie.