3 ms·

I disagree. There are limits to what ideas constitute free speech in many modern countries. As an extreme example, an idea that puts forward genocide as accepta

by shafyy 4y ago

I disagree. There are limits to what ideas constitute free speech in many modern countries. As an extreme example, an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech", even if it's said with nice words. This and other examples are ruled under law in many developed countries.

francisofascii 4y ago
> an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech" See I have a problem with the word "never". How about "rarely" or at least "once". A terrible idea should be given an audience once. Let it it be quickly refuted, then go back to better conversations. If someone brings it up again, point them back to the earlier discussion. That way it is established why it is a bad idea.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "That way it is established why it is a bad idea." Is that how most arguments on the internet end?
  - jat850 4y ago
    In practice, almost never. Internet arguments seldom result in both sides agreeing on a single outcome. Nobody is convincing anyone else of anything on the internet (most of the time).
  - francisofascii 4y ago
    Sometimes. Threads are archived. Questions closed but not deleted. New questions/comments disallowed. It meets a middle ground between absolute free speech and absolute moderation.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      What I meant was people don't normally end a discussion, especially political, with one side admitting loss and agreeing that the other way right.
t0suj4 4y ago
Those developed countries have people taking their banned speech underground. It is usually also very illegal to take their strongest arguments and argue against them. All you have left is hope that they will never gain stronger support.
- themitigating 4y ago
  That's fine, it helps. Countries the UK also have defamation laws that are much stronger than the US. I read that what really brought down the KKK was a massive amount of lawsuits
seanw444 4y ago
Then it's not free speech. The whole point is that there are not restrictions. If it's restricted, it is by definition not free. "Free speech" is a cool buzzword people think they can qualify for (or wish to), without the ramifications of true free speech (hurt feelings, bad ideologies being discussed in a positive light).
- mariusor 4y ago
  Freedom of speech is not a buzzword, it has a pretty good definition in the declaration of human rights and on Wikipedia: > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. The fact that most people on the internet (which seem to include you) are using it wrong is another thing. Free speech only applies in the relationship between citizens and the state. It has no meaning in the relationship between individuals and the platforms they're using for communication.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > Free speech only applies in the relationship between citizens and the state. That is a pretty silly definition. Imagine if a corporate owned mafia was going around murdering everyone who supports increasing taxes. Surely, you would recognize that this has a chilling effect on speech, and could be said to control people's free speech rights, even though it is not the government doing it.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    You're right. Companies have the right to censor things they don't like on their platforms. That's why people should stop using platforms that are frequently censored if they really care about "free speech." Just like how people can't "free loiter" on my personal property if I want them out of it. I don't care about an arbitrary definition of two strung-together words, whose definitions individually, are absolute. When combined, their definition is just as absolute. The speech must be free. Free is simply defined as free. Not "free, but ..." in which case it is no longer just "free speech."
mariusor 4y ago
My words were "a wide range of topics" not "all the topics". Personally I can think of a meaningful debate that can be had from talking about "genocide" but I'm pretty sure that people that would hold this opinion in truth are a little beyond what would be considered a "good faith" discussion.

by shafyy 4y ago

francisofascii 4y ago

> an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech" See I have a problem with the word "never". How about "rarely" or at least "once". A terrible idea should be given an audience once. Let it it be quickly refuted, then go back to better conversations. If someone brings it up again, point them back to the earlier discussion. That way it is established why it is a bad idea.

themitigating 4y ago
"That way it is established why it is a bad idea." Is that how most arguments on the internet end?
- jat850 4y ago
  In practice, almost never. Internet arguments seldom result in both sides agreeing on a single outcome. Nobody is convincing anyone else of anything on the internet (most of the time).
- francisofascii 4y ago
  Sometimes. Threads are archived. Questions closed but not deleted. New questions/comments disallowed. It meets a middle ground between absolute free speech and absolute moderation.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    What I meant was people don't normally end a discussion, especially political, with one side admitting loss and agreeing that the other way right.

t0suj4 4y ago

Those developed countries have people taking their banned speech underground. It is usually also very illegal to take their strongest arguments and argue against them. All you have left is hope that they will never gain stronger support.

themitigating 4y ago
That's fine, it helps. Countries the UK also have defamation laws that are much stronger than the US. I read that what really brought down the KKK was a massive amount of lawsuits

seanw444 4y ago

Then it's not free speech. The whole point is that there are not restrictions. If it's restricted, it is by definition not free. "Free speech" is a cool buzzword people think they can qualify for (or wish to), without the ramifications of true free speech (hurt feelings, bad ideologies being discussed in a positive light).

mariusor 4y ago
Freedom of speech is not a buzzword, it has a pretty good definition in the declaration of human rights and on Wikipedia: > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. The fact that most people on the internet (which seem to include you) are using it wrong is another thing. Free speech only applies in the relationship between citizens and the state. It has no meaning in the relationship between individuals and the platforms they're using for communication.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Free speech only applies in the relationship between citizens and the state. That is a pretty silly definition. Imagine if a corporate owned mafia was going around murdering everyone who supports increasing taxes. Surely, you would recognize that this has a chilling effect on speech, and could be said to control people's free speech rights, even though it is not the government doing it.
- seanw444 4y ago
  You're right. Companies have the right to censor things they don't like on their platforms. That's why people should stop using platforms that are frequently censored if they really care about "free speech." Just like how people can't "free loiter" on my personal property if I want them out of it. I don't care about an arbitrary definition of two strung-together words, whose definitions individually, are absolute. When combined, their definition is just as absolute. The speech must be free. Free is simply defined as free. Not "free, but ..." in which case it is no longer just "free speech."

mariusor 4y ago

My words were "a wide range of topics" not "all the topics". Personally I can think of a meaningful debate that can be had from talking about "genocide" but I'm pretty sure that people that would hold this opinion in truth are a little beyond what would be considered a "good faith" discussion.