2 ms·

But everyone believes in some censorship so it’s disingenuous to claim one side believes in free speech and others don’t. Both sides want to censor harmful acti

by TimPC 4y ago

But everyone believes in some censorship so it’s disingenuous to claim one side believes in free speech and others don’t. Both sides want to censor harmful activity it’s just a question of what bar of harm they are using. Some people want to censor only things like child porn. Others want to censor things like the TidePods challenge too. Still others want to censor quack cures that don’t work that people might die from using in place of actual treatment. The problem with bad free speech is that people aren’t accountable to it. If you convince someone of a quack cure and they try it and die as a result even if they have proof they tried it because of what you said it’s very difficult to hold you to any legal accountability. The net result is speech that has freedom from responsibility.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Are you implying I was being disingenuous or claiming one "side" believes in free speech or others don't? I wasn't aware that I was even talking about "sides". > The problem with bad free speech is that people aren’t accountable to it. If you convince someone of a quack cure and they try it and die as a result even if they have proof they tried it because of what you said it’s very difficult to hold you to any legal accountability. The net result is speech that has freedom from responsibility. I don't know what "bad" free speech is or why people wouldn't be accountable for it. People absolutely should be accountable for damage to others caused by their actions (including speech). That is the foundation of the civil legal system and does not mean you can't have free speech. > If you convince someone of a quack cure and they try it and die as a result even if they have proof they tried it because of what you said it’s very difficult to hold you to any legal accountability. The net result is speech that has freedom from responsibility. Well fraud and other things should be able to cover a lot of situations like this. A lot of the rest should be covered by the listener taking responsibility for themselves too. And what is left... I don't claim to be perfect or immune to abuse. I don't see how you are constructing an argument though. "Here is a bad hypothetical thing that I'm alleging that free speech might allow to happen". So... what's exactly the point here? What does that make free speech worse or better than? Does government and corporations mass censoring people stop them from lying to one another or convincing each other of fallacies? And it can just as easily be spun the other way too here's my hypothetical -- if the US government and their corporate owners and media sycophants had not lied and bullied and intimidated and effectively censored people into not speaking out against the war in Iraq, trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved. My position isn't that "free speech" is perfect, or that it has to be absolute without limits or not at all because that would apparently be hypocritical. It is that those with the means and power to enact censorship have also been the ones responsible for lies, atrocities, theft, wars, and injustice. And that we shouldn't be comfortable with censorship whether its directly by the government or by corporations at the behest of the ruling class who happen to own the government. And that people shouldn't be fooled (for the nth time) by their crocodile tears and pleas about the greater good and how they are in it together with us (and therefore they need to keep us quiet).
- TimPC 4y ago
  I think this continues to ignore my point. There is no absolute free speech. As the US court has repeatedly ruled, porn is a type of speech and thus unlimited free speech includes the proliferation of child pornography. Instead we have to choose as a society which harms are sufficient to prohibit certain forms of speech and which are not. Unless you are arguing people should be free to distribute child porn you should stop taking this free-speech absolutism approach. You avoid the central question entirely and thus don’t say anything meaningful on which speech should be allowed and which speech shouldn’t.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    I didn't say there should be "absolute free speech". You're still just off arguing against some strawman of your own making.

by TimPC 4y ago

throwawaylinux 4y ago

Are you implying I was being disingenuous or claiming one "side" believes in free speech or others don't? I wasn't aware that I was even talking about "sides". > The problem with bad free speech is that people aren’t accountable to it. If you convince someone of a quack cure and they try it and die as a result even if they have proof they tried it because of what you said it’s very difficult to hold you to any legal accountability. The net result is speech that has freedom from responsibility. I don't know what "bad" free speech is or why people wouldn't be accountable for it. People absolutely should be accountable for damage to others caused by their actions (including speech). That is the foundation of the civil legal system and does not mean you can't have free speech. > If you convince someone of a quack cure and they try it and die as a result even if they have proof they tried it because of what you said it’s very difficult to hold you to any legal accountability. The net result is speech that has freedom from responsibility. Well fraud and other things should be able to cover a lot of situations like this. A lot of the rest should be covered by the listener taking responsibility for themselves too. And what is left... I don't claim to be perfect or immune to abuse. I don't see how you are constructing an argument though. "Here is a bad hypothetical thing that I'm alleging that free speech might allow to happen". So... what's exactly the point here? What does that make free speech worse or better than? Does government and corporations mass censoring people stop them from lying to one another or convincing each other of fallacies? And it can just as easily be spun the other way too here's my hypothetical -- if the US government and their corporate owners and media sycophants had not lied and bullied and intimidated and effectively censored people into not speaking out against the war in Iraq, trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved. My position isn't that "free speech" is perfect, or that it has to be absolute without limits or not at all because that would apparently be hypocritical. It is that those with the means and power to enact censorship have also been the ones responsible for lies, atrocities, theft, wars, and injustice. And that we shouldn't be comfortable with censorship whether its directly by the government or by corporations at the behest of the ruling class who happen to own the government. And that people shouldn't be fooled (for the nth time) by their crocodile tears and pleas about the greater good and how they are in it together with us (and therefore they need to keep us quiet).

TimPC 4y ago
I think this continues to ignore my point. There is no absolute free speech. As the US court has repeatedly ruled, porn is a type of speech and thus unlimited free speech includes the proliferation of child pornography. Instead we have to choose as a society which harms are sufficient to prohibit certain forms of speech and which are not. Unless you are arguing people should be free to distribute child porn you should stop taking this free-speech absolutism approach. You avoid the central question entirely and thus don’t say anything meaningful on which speech should be allowed and which speech shouldn’t.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  I didn't say there should be "absolute free speech". You're still just off arguing against some strawman of your own making.