4 ms·
Sure there's a line, but it's extremely fuzzy and subjective. Everyone sees it in a different place. Once you give the state the power to arrest people for spr
by danenania 4y ago
Sure there's a line, but it's extremely fuzzy and subjective. Everyone sees it in a different place.
Once you give the state the power to arrest people for spreading "verifiable lies", you now have to determine what "verifiable" means and who does the verifying. It's inevitably going to change a lot depending on the political beliefs of those in power.
It's the halting problem, "who watches the watchers?", etc. There's no way to have the state determining what's true and what's a lie, even in the most seemingly obvious cases, while maintaining freedom of speech and a free society more generally.
- andrewflnr 4y agoYou're projecting a lot more specifics into my ideas than are actually there. I haven't proposed arresting anyone.
- danenania 4y agoNo, but it's usually the unsaid implication when stating that certain opinions, ideas, or media outlets are threats to democracy and "we need to do something". Perhaps instead of arresting, it's fining, or silencing, or some other method of enforcement. Regardless, the counter-argument remains the same.
- andrewflnr 4y agoMaybe these conversations would be more productive if we didn't make so many unwarranted presumptions of malice on the parts of our opponents.
- danenania 4y agoI don't presume any malice, fwiw. I understand why people hold these positions and am sympathetic to the reasoning. I just disagree. Apologies though if you feel I've misrepresented your position.
- andrewflnr 4y agoFair, I suppose you didn't specifically accuse me any more than I specifically proposed arresting wrongthinkers. :)