3 ms·
>You can have either free speech or banned campaign founding but not both. You could have something else: complete and total accountability, and full transpare
by slowpoke 15y ago
>You can have either free speech or banned campaign founding but not both.
You could have something else: complete and total accountability, and full transparency of WHO is paying HOW MUCH to WHOM for WHAT purpose. Publicly available. In addition, we could require all politicians to wear their sponsors' logos (just like a motorsport driver) when they appear in public.
Representative democracy is an abstraction that tries to hide what's going on behind the scenes. Let's rip off the hood and make the abstraction leak wherever possible.
Also, I don't necessarily think spreading outright lies should be considered free speech, just as much as I don't consider propaganda or hate speech to be free speech. I don't think we should forbid it but I refuse to categorize it as "worthy of protection".
- jerf 15y agoIf you believe in free speech, except for the speech you don't agree with, you don't believe in free speech. "Propaganda" and "hate speech" are just ways of trying to avoid making it obvious you mean "speech I don't agree with", especially the word "propaganda", which in practice simply straight-up means "speech I don't agree with".
- slowpoke 15y ago>If you believe in free speech, except for the speech you don't agree with, you don't believe in free speech. Except that's not what I was saying. You have an opinion that differs from mine? You are free to state it and I will gladly fight for your right to say that. I just don't believe that outright lies (propaganda) and mere hate are a valid opinion. I also said we shouldn't explicitly forbid it. It's just not worthy of extended protection and respect. I don't see how this means I don't believe in free speech.
- jerf 15y agoThe probability of at least one of your supposed "outright lies" being factually true approaches 1. Propaganda isn't a descriptive term, it's a slur.