3 ms·

1. Who selects the censor? You might be ok with <your candidate> making speech restrictions.. but are you ok with a hardline opposition candidate doing the sam

1. Who selects the censor? You might be ok with <your candidate> making speech restrictions.. but are you ok with a hardline opposition candidate doing the same? 2. Governments change Even a government that starts using a power - say restricting access to bank accounts - for something good like stopping actual terrorism or money laundering can decide to start using it against political movements they don't care for. 3. Governments grow Governments only grow in power. They get bigger. They use more powers. Even some of the hardcore censor states started with more narrow objectives. China started with objectives to stop false information and external propaganda - now they use that power to suppress victims talking about sexual assault by party members. Fundamentally I do not trust any government to have that power. It will always be abused, and we must always resist it. Australia is an excellent example of a liberal democracy using safetyism to quickly run towards authoritarianism.

ivan_gammel 5y ago
Governments exist to protect those, who cannot protect themselves. If you do not give the government power to balance execution of human rights by restricting some of them in reasonable ways, the government will fail to protect vulnerable minorities and eventually your democracy will be destroyed by those, who will exploit the power of media to promote their agenda and to attack people, who have different ancestry, beliefs or do not fit in that agenda in other ways. The government should not remain unchecked, of course, so voters must have the power to replace them in a democratic process, that’s it. Nobody invented yet a better system, that actually could work.
- tpush 5y ago
  Or, you know, the government restricts human rights in "reasonable ways" that are not reasonable for a given minority. Historically it's largely been abuses of governmental power that resulted in atrocities.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    Historical lessons are important but it’s a very long stretch from atrocities of the past to this specific law in Germany — so long that I don’t really understand how is this related.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  The harm of speech is low. Yes, people can say things that mean. People can say things that are wrong and misleading - and you may even believe them. Everyone has the ability to protect themselves from others speech - stop listening to them. This works even for very small children. The freedom of speech brings with it the ability to ask for a redress of wrongs. It is how people can talk about alternative candidates. It is the most vital of freedoms because it is the foundation of the others.

ivan_gammel 5y ago

Governments exist to protect those, who cannot protect themselves. If you do not give the government power to balance execution of human rights by restricting some of them in reasonable ways, the government will fail to protect vulnerable minorities and eventually your democracy will be destroyed by those, who will exploit the power of media to promote their agenda and to attack people, who have different ancestry, beliefs or do not fit in that agenda in other ways. The government should not remain unchecked, of course, so voters must have the power to replace them in a democratic process, that’s it. Nobody invented yet a better system, that actually could work.

tpush 5y ago
Or, you know, the government restricts human rights in "reasonable ways" that are not reasonable for a given minority. Historically it's largely been abuses of governmental power that resulted in atrocities.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  Historical lessons are important but it’s a very long stretch from atrocities of the past to this specific law in Germany — so long that I don’t really understand how is this related.
vorpalhex 5y ago
The harm of speech is low. Yes, people can say things that mean. People can say things that are wrong and misleading - and you may even believe them. Everyone has the ability to protect themselves from others speech - stop listening to them. This works even for very small children. The freedom of speech brings with it the ability to ask for a redress of wrongs. It is how people can talk about alternative candidates. It is the most vital of freedoms because it is the foundation of the others.