4 ms·

Alex Jones may indeed be a terrible person, but so what? Government has no business censoring him or anyone from making spurious claims.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Government has no business censoring him or anyone from making spurious claims The argument is if enough people suffer Sandy Hooks and get harassed by Alex Jones type sycophants, they lose trust in freedom of speech narrowly, democracy broadly, and become more inclined to support a change of pace. We’re seeing rising support for authoritarianism in part because our system isn’t working for some people. I’m still unsure if the solution is less democracy (to temper swinging majoritarianism) or more, but that unsureness is sort of symptomatic of the argument around not being able to trust institutions. (There are also zero authoritarian regimes in history that tolerated broad freedom of speech.)
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  You could argue that we tend to move in cycles ( things are too loose, up the authority; things are too tight, loosen up ). I am personally horrified that US appears to be somewhat ok with gutting its freedom of speech as much as it can with support of some rather naive helpers, who think that power will not be used against them.
criddell 4y ago
Should Volkswagen be allowed to lie about their diesel engine emissions?
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  It's not about allowing or not. Anyone can say whatever they want. Then they get sued for fraud. Free speech != allowing fraud in the legal system. (or any other consequence from speech). So strictly speaking, yes, you are ALLOWED to say whatever you want, but be prepared for a lot of shit if you lie to people or are wrong. Or be prepared to go to jail if you incite violence or yell fire in a crowded space. (and btw, Alex Jones is bankrupt because of Sandy Hook, to the other posters above). This free speech = speech without consequences is a silly lie invented by people who want to control speech.
beej71 4y ago
Weren't these all civil suits?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Government has no business censoring him or anyone from making spurious claims The argument is if enough people suffer Sandy Hooks and get harassed by Alex Jones type sycophants, they lose trust in freedom of speech narrowly, democracy broadly, and become more inclined to support a change of pace. We’re seeing rising support for authoritarianism in part because our system isn’t working for some people. I’m still unsure if the solution is less democracy (to temper swinging majoritarianism) or more, but that unsureness is sort of symptomatic of the argument around not being able to trust institutions. (There are also zero authoritarian regimes in history that tolerated broad freedom of speech.)

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
You could argue that we tend to move in cycles ( things are too loose, up the authority; things are too tight, loosen up ). I am personally horrified that US appears to be somewhat ok with gutting its freedom of speech as much as it can with support of some rather naive helpers, who think that power will not be used against them.

criddell 4y ago

Should Volkswagen be allowed to lie about their diesel engine emissions?

cloutchaser 4y ago
It's not about allowing or not. Anyone can say whatever they want. Then they get sued for fraud. Free speech != allowing fraud in the legal system. (or any other consequence from speech). So strictly speaking, yes, you are ALLOWED to say whatever you want, but be prepared for a lot of shit if you lie to people or are wrong. Or be prepared to go to jail if you incite violence or yell fire in a crowded space. (and btw, Alex Jones is bankrupt because of Sandy Hook, to the other posters above). This free speech = speech without consequences is a silly lie invented by people who want to control speech.

beej71 4y ago

Weren't these all civil suits?