5 ms·

> Democracy requires free speech. So, if you're against free speech, then you're also against Democracy. Why does democracy require free speech? Can I not vote

> Democracy requires free speech. So, if you're against free speech, then you're also against Democracy. Why does democracy require free speech? Can I not vote for whoever I want even if I'm mute? > So, what concrete alternative do you propose? You get that there are many other countries in Western Europe that don't have as much free speech as the US right? You get that the lock down policies of many other Western countries seem Draconian relative to our policies right? You get that giving me some of the most extreme examples of alternatives makes it seem like you are arguing in bad faith right? Why do we need a brand new form of government? We didn't need a new form of government to ban saying "fire" in a theater.

MisterMower 4y ago
> Why does democracy require free speech? Can I not vote for whoever I want even if I'm mute? I think it would be extremely difficult for the electorate to make educated decisions about who to vote for if speech supporting a certain candidate is suppressed, for example. Free speech and the ability to vote are deeply intertwined. Without the ability to discuss candidates and issues openly, the electorate can’t make an informed, honest choice. If one candidate or side of the debate is suppressed or censored, that in and of itself affects the outcome of an election.
- Intermernet 4y ago
  It seems extremely difficult for the electorate to make educated decisions about who to vote for due to the lack of consequences for completely misleading or false statements. Is a politician's lie protected by free speech?
  - MisterMower 4y ago
    Yes, as should be the speech of each person who points out the politician is lying. A prerequisite for a politician to experience consequences for lying is for people to be free to discuss the lie, persuade fellow voters that he is lying, and disseminate that fact freely. You’re not going to prevent politicians from lying by limiting speech. You’ll achieve quite the opposite effect, actually.
    - Intermernet 4y ago
      Free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. Someone aspiring to public office should be penalised for deliberately misleading voters. The imbalance of power and exposure means that the many people who correctly point out the lies and manipulation are unheard, while the perpetrator of the lies and manipulation can freely continue to lie and manipulate.
      - MisterMower 4y ago
        They will be penalized, by the voters, if people are allowed to discuss the politician’s actions and statements freely and make their own judgement about his fitness for office, and if they actually choose to do so. Ask yourself why those voices of truth go unheard. Or why the politician’s lies continue without consequence. Is it not because of a lack of robust speech around the politician’s behavior? Why doesn’t that robust speech occur? Sometimes it is suppressed. But more often, the root of the problem is that most people prefer to be lied to. Seeking and discovering the truth is hard work, and it is work that no person should outsource to a third party. Yet that is exactly what people do, when they rely on the press or media for the truth. Those organizations lie at least as frequently as the politician does.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Literally yes, because the next prompted question is 'who determines what political speech is true and therefore allowed?', which is a path fraught with dragons.
    - Intermernet 4y ago
      Some statements are grey areas. Some are provably true or false. If a politician continually makes provably false statements, and they're supported by a large proportion of the media, then what recourse do voters currently have to prevent this from continuing? Edit: What I'm suggesting is that free speech is protected against retribution from the government. The elected officials should be held to a higher standard. They are the government, and should not be protected against retribution from the voters. There should be serious penalties for any elected official who continues to make provably false statements after they've been pointed out.
      - MisterMower 4y ago
        It is the job of voters to hold them accountable. Our politicians are a mirror of ourselves. We usually get the leaders we deserve. If it’s not the voters who should hold these lying politicians to account, then who? Or what system would you put in place to ensure their honesty?
        Karunamon 4y ago
        In the first place, this is a thought-terminating cliché. Second, nothing prevents a politician from saying one thing to the voters and then doing something completely different once in office. (Especially at the federal level where there is no recall or recourse). The only accountability provided surrounds reelection.
        MisterMower 4y ago
        It’s a sad world when asking questions and seeking clarity is “thought-terminating cliché.” My question still stands: what would you change about our current system to fix these problems?

MisterMower 4y ago

> Why does democracy require free speech? Can I not vote for whoever I want even if I'm mute? I think it would be extremely difficult for the electorate to make educated decisions about who to vote for if speech supporting a certain candidate is suppressed, for example. Free speech and the ability to vote are deeply intertwined. Without the ability to discuss candidates and issues openly, the electorate can’t make an informed, honest choice. If one candidate or side of the debate is suppressed or censored, that in and of itself affects the outcome of an election.

Intermernet 4y ago
It seems extremely difficult for the electorate to make educated decisions about who to vote for due to the lack of consequences for completely misleading or false statements. Is a politician's lie protected by free speech?
- MisterMower 4y ago
  Yes, as should be the speech of each person who points out the politician is lying. A prerequisite for a politician to experience consequences for lying is for people to be free to discuss the lie, persuade fellow voters that he is lying, and disseminate that fact freely. You’re not going to prevent politicians from lying by limiting speech. You’ll achieve quite the opposite effect, actually.
  - Intermernet 4y ago
    Free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. Someone aspiring to public office should be penalised for deliberately misleading voters. The imbalance of power and exposure means that the many people who correctly point out the lies and manipulation are unheard, while the perpetrator of the lies and manipulation can freely continue to lie and manipulate.
    - MisterMower 4y ago
      They will be penalized, by the voters, if people are allowed to discuss the politician’s actions and statements freely and make their own judgement about his fitness for office, and if they actually choose to do so. Ask yourself why those voices of truth go unheard. Or why the politician’s lies continue without consequence. Is it not because of a lack of robust speech around the politician’s behavior? Why doesn’t that robust speech occur? Sometimes it is suppressed. But more often, the root of the problem is that most people prefer to be lied to. Seeking and discovering the truth is hard work, and it is work that no person should outsource to a third party. Yet that is exactly what people do, when they rely on the press or media for the truth. Those organizations lie at least as frequently as the politician does.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Literally yes, because the next prompted question is 'who determines what political speech is true and therefore allowed?', which is a path fraught with dragons.
  - Intermernet 4y ago
    Some statements are grey areas. Some are provably true or false. If a politician continually makes provably false statements, and they're supported by a large proportion of the media, then what recourse do voters currently have to prevent this from continuing? Edit: What I'm suggesting is that free speech is protected against retribution from the government. The elected officials should be held to a higher standard. They are the government, and should not be protected against retribution from the voters. There should be serious penalties for any elected official who continues to make provably false statements after they've been pointed out.
    - MisterMower 4y ago
      It is the job of voters to hold them accountable. Our politicians are a mirror of ourselves. We usually get the leaders we deserve. If it’s not the voters who should hold these lying politicians to account, then who? Or what system would you put in place to ensure their honesty?
      - Karunamon 4y ago
        In the first place, this is a thought-terminating cliché. Second, nothing prevents a politician from saying one thing to the voters and then doing something completely different once in office. (Especially at the federal level where there is no recall or recourse). The only accountability provided surrounds reelection.
        MisterMower 4y ago
        It’s a sad world when asking questions and seeking clarity is “thought-terminating cliché.” My question still stands: what would you change about our current system to fix these problems?