3 ms·

> The notion that all speech should be allowed actually seems stupid to me on its face, the more that I consider it. The logical conclusion of this is speech s

> The notion that all speech should be allowed actually seems stupid to me on its face, the more that I consider it. The logical conclusion of this is speech should be regulated. And if speech is regulated, the next question is by whom? Good luck trying to get people to agree on this and even more good luck having this not be abused by those in charge. What you will end up with is a dictatorship like China and Russia.

stouset 4y ago
There are bountiful examples of regulated speech in the modern world and yet the world isn't only China and Russia. Speech is regulated right here on this platform, where you clearly have no qualms with participating. Speech is regulated in Germany, where it is outright illegal to express Nazi-sympathizing opinions or to deny the Holocaust. Speech is regulated in the US, where you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater or promote investments you haven't disclosed your stake in. Not all slopes are slippery.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  > or to deny the Holocaust Purely out of curiosity, what do you think about government mandated beliefs?
  - stouset 4y ago
    The government doesn't mandate beliefs. In this case, the government denies you a platform to spread particular beliefs. It's hard to argue that leaving holocaust denial out of the discourse is losing much of value.
    - throwawayacc2 4y ago
      > In this case, the government denies you a platform to spread particular beliefs. Is this something you believe to be a good thing?
      - stouset 4y ago
        It's something I believe isn't a slippery slope. We have ample evidence that denying a platform to limited sets of beliefs (e.g., Holocaust denial or Nazi sympathizing) does not quickly devolve to total censorship the likes of which we see in China and Russia, which was the original argument you made. If you're backing down from that original assertion I'm happy to argue other aspects of this discussion, but I'm not going to chase you around in a circle while you keep re-framing the argument.

stouset 4y ago

There are bountiful examples of regulated speech in the modern world and yet the world isn't only China and Russia. Speech is regulated right here on this platform, where you clearly have no qualms with participating. Speech is regulated in Germany, where it is outright illegal to express Nazi-sympathizing opinions or to deny the Holocaust. Speech is regulated in the US, where you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater or promote investments you haven't disclosed your stake in. Not all slopes are slippery.

throwawayacc2 4y ago
> or to deny the Holocaust Purely out of curiosity, what do you think about government mandated beliefs?
- stouset 4y ago
  The government doesn't mandate beliefs. In this case, the government denies you a platform to spread particular beliefs. It's hard to argue that leaving holocaust denial out of the discourse is losing much of value.
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    > In this case, the government denies you a platform to spread particular beliefs. Is this something you believe to be a good thing?
    - stouset 4y ago
      It's something I believe isn't a slippery slope. We have ample evidence that denying a platform to limited sets of beliefs (e.g., Holocaust denial or Nazi sympathizing) does not quickly devolve to total censorship the likes of which we see in China and Russia, which was the original argument you made. If you're backing down from that original assertion I'm happy to argue other aspects of this discussion, but I'm not going to chase you around in a circle while you keep re-framing the argument.