5 ms·

Most people are not free speech absolutists. They may support free speech if they believe it will make the society better. It's means to an end, not the end its

Most people are not free speech absolutists. They may support free speech if they believe it will make the society better. It's means to an end, not the end itself. For them, the extent speech should be free is an empirical question and not a matter of principles. From this perspective, the worst kind of speech is not hate speech or calls for violence. It's the speech that deepens political divisions and lowers trust in the society. When people see how free speech is making the society worse – when they start seeing their political opponents as their enemies – they want to police speech to make the society better. Especially the speech their enemies. If you engage in speech like that, or if you support people who do it, you are undermining freedom of speech. You may believe you support freedom of speech, but in practice you may be opposing it.

cm2187 4y ago
> It's the speech that deepens political divisions and lowers trust in the society So when Fauci lies on television, I can't speak out because it would deepend political divisions and lower trust in the society? That's a terrible standard. And completely subjective. This is the very definition of the absense of free speech. Free speech is the freedom to disagree, to challenge. Not to only say what is consensual.
- redeeman 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  Why do you support freedom of speech? For its own sake, or because words are actions with consequences? Is politics about being right, administering the state, or changing the society? Is "political" a negative, neutral, or positive attribute? If it's change you're after, sometimes your best course of action is to remain silent and to leave politics to those with personalities better suited for it. I've known enough politicians to understand that they are often better people than I am. Not everyone but many, perhaps even the majority. They can disagree in public, work together despite their differences, and go grab a beer together after work.
Retric 4y ago
Political speech isn’t a problem, but I object to people spreading objectively false information. Convincing people to take alternative medicine for serious diseases is just as harmful as yelling fire in a theater or hate speech the victims are simply the believers and their dependents. This isn’t a new problem, it’s been illegal to pretend to be a doctor for decades. The difference is simply the reach we are giving charlatans. PS: I can’t wait until a flat earthers start defunding GPS because it’s spreading lies…
- redeeman 4y ago
  > but I object to people spreading objectively false information. "But they couldnt have known back then, the facts only came out later".... This sounds good in theory, unfortunately people lie, and one mans objectively false information is another mans truth. If there was a magic 8ball that could say "true/false" to any such information, i'd agree, but there isnt.
  - Retric 4y ago
    There is information you can quantify as false. Ronald Macdonald was never president of the United States. Many things aren’t known and plenty of things might be true, but a great deal of what gets passed around on social media isn’t ambiguous it’s just wrong.
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  > but I object to people spreading objectively false information UFOs, MKUltra, involvement in various coups, PRISM, etc. used to be "objectively false information"... until it wasn't. > This isn’t a new problem, it’s been illegal to pretend to be a doctor for decades. The difference is simply the reach we are giving charlatans. Thalidomide is the famous counterexample. Just to be clear, I don't like people who give bad medical advice. But I am much more tempered when it comes to the rights of ordinary citizens to hold and discuss their personal views about industrialized medicine.
  - Retric 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
The problem with this logic is that censorship is divisive. Whoever is being censored will resent it. They'll build their own networks and partition themselves, which only deepens the divisions. Whereas if you debate them and they lose in front of everyone, their ideas become discredited and the viewers become inoculated because they've now heard an effective counterargument instead of encountering bad ideas for the first time in a place controlled entirely by their proponents.

cm2187 4y ago

> It's the speech that deepens political divisions and lowers trust in the society So when Fauci lies on television, I can't speak out because it would deepend political divisions and lower trust in the society? That's a terrible standard. And completely subjective. This is the very definition of the absense of free speech. Free speech is the freedom to disagree, to challenge. Not to only say what is consensual.

redeeman 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
jltsiren 4y ago
Why do you support freedom of speech? For its own sake, or because words are actions with consequences? Is politics about being right, administering the state, or changing the society? Is "political" a negative, neutral, or positive attribute? If it's change you're after, sometimes your best course of action is to remain silent and to leave politics to those with personalities better suited for it. I've known enough politicians to understand that they are often better people than I am. Not everyone but many, perhaps even the majority. They can disagree in public, work together despite their differences, and go grab a beer together after work.

Retric 4y ago

Political speech isn’t a problem, but I object to people spreading objectively false information. Convincing people to take alternative medicine for serious diseases is just as harmful as yelling fire in a theater or hate speech the victims are simply the believers and their dependents. This isn’t a new problem, it’s been illegal to pretend to be a doctor for decades. The difference is simply the reach we are giving charlatans. PS: I can’t wait until a flat earthers start defunding GPS because it’s spreading lies…

redeeman 4y ago
> but I object to people spreading objectively false information. "But they couldnt have known back then, the facts only came out later".... This sounds good in theory, unfortunately people lie, and one mans objectively false information is another mans truth. If there was a magic 8ball that could say "true/false" to any such information, i'd agree, but there isnt.
- Retric 4y ago
  There is information you can quantify as false. Ronald Macdonald was never president of the United States. Many things aren’t known and plenty of things might be true, but a great deal of what gets passed around on social media isn’t ambiguous it’s just wrong.
nottathrowaway3 4y ago
> but I object to people spreading objectively false information UFOs, MKUltra, involvement in various coups, PRISM, etc. used to be "objectively false information"... until it wasn't. > This isn’t a new problem, it’s been illegal to pretend to be a doctor for decades. The difference is simply the reach we are giving charlatans. Thalidomide is the famous counterexample. Just to be clear, I don't like people who give bad medical advice. But I am much more tempered when it comes to the rights of ordinary citizens to hold and discuss their personal views about industrialized medicine.
- Retric 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

The problem with this logic is that censorship is divisive. Whoever is being censored will resent it. They'll build their own networks and partition themselves, which only deepens the divisions. Whereas if you debate them and they lose in front of everyone, their ideas become discredited and the viewers become inoculated because they've now heard an effective counterargument instead of encountering bad ideas for the first time in a place controlled entirely by their proponents.