4 ms·

Just for reference I believe that the "more speech" idea originated with Louis Brandeis, who was a brilliant thinker and one of the important liberal Supreme Co

Just for reference I believe that the "more speech" idea originated with Louis Brandeis, who was a brilliant thinker and one of the important liberal Supreme Court justices of the 20th century. The actual quote is: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."[0] Louis Brandeis did believe that context and specifics are important, so I think the technology of the online platform is significant especially with respect to the first part of that quote. [0] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep274/usrep274357/usrep274357.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

pjc50 4y ago
.. I read through and I think that makes the opposite point! In Whitney v California the California law banning Communist organisation was upheld. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ > "Whitney was one of the founders of the Communist Labor Party, which was a radical wing of the Socialist Party that split from the rest of the Party after a convention in 1919. When she attended a convention to organize a California wing of the Labor Party, Whitney exhorted workers to vote for its candidates in elections and advocated for taking political action in a resolution. The Party eventually adopted a more extreme program than what Whitney advocated in her resolution, and she protested to no avail. Whitney was charged with violating the California Criminal Syndicalism Act on the basis that she had helped to organize a group that sought to effect economic and political change through the unlawful use of violence. She argued that she had not intended the organization to act in this way and did not plan to aid it in those objectives, so she should not be charged merely for attending the convention. Whitney claimed that the California law violated the First Amendment." As usual, lots of nice things may have been said about free speech, but in the end she was convicted and jailed for organising a political party.
hackerlight 4y ago
Did he say why he believes this is the best remedy, and is his position backed up by any evidence from psychology, memetics, etc? The evidence I'm aware of leads me to the opposite conclusion. Also he wrote this before social media. He wrote that before fascism swept in on the back of free speech and public persuasion in the 1930s. We're in a new paradigm now and worldviews need to be updated to fit new information and new evidence than what was available during his time.

pjc50 4y ago

.. I read through and I think that makes the opposite point! In Whitney v California the California law banning Communist organisation was upheld. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ > "Whitney was one of the founders of the Communist Labor Party, which was a radical wing of the Socialist Party that split from the rest of the Party after a convention in 1919. When she attended a convention to organize a California wing of the Labor Party, Whitney exhorted workers to vote for its candidates in elections and advocated for taking political action in a resolution. The Party eventually adopted a more extreme program than what Whitney advocated in her resolution, and she protested to no avail. Whitney was charged with violating the California Criminal Syndicalism Act on the basis that she had helped to organize a group that sought to effect economic and political change through the unlawful use of violence. She argued that she had not intended the organization to act in this way and did not plan to aid it in those objectives, so she should not be charged merely for attending the convention. Whitney claimed that the California law violated the First Amendment." As usual, lots of nice things may have been said about free speech, but in the end she was convicted and jailed for organising a political party.

hackerlight 4y ago

Did he say why he believes this is the best remedy, and is his position backed up by any evidence from psychology, memetics, etc? The evidence I'm aware of leads me to the opposite conclusion. Also he wrote this before social media. He wrote that before fascism swept in on the back of free speech and public persuasion in the 1930s. We're in a new paradigm now and worldviews need to be updated to fit new information and new evidence than what was available during his time.