4 ms·
> free expression requires absolutely no limits But doesn't it? Usually it's the authoritarians, dictators and generally "bad guys" who need to limit speech,
by ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> free expression requires absolutely no limits
But doesn't it?
Usually it's the authoritarians, dictators and generally "bad guys" who need to limit speech, censor, burn books, etc.
- leoqa 4y agoSociety isn’t a system we can reason about in absolutes. The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building, I think we collectively agree that there are limitations on free speech and we’re fortunate to let the courts map out the nuance rather than a mob or a dictator.
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoNothing is absolute... but for example, in my country (former socialist one), things like affirmative action would be considered very racist, while some countries (mostly USA) consider affirmative action anti-racist. If I argue with an american about this, which one of us is racist, and who decides that when it comes to censorship?
- JKCalhoun 4y agoYou seem to have put your finger on one of the more nuanced issues that the OP suggested courts can resolve.
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoWhich courts? American ones, that approve of affirmative action, or ours here, that don't? Do you really need courts to settle a verbal (well.. written) argument online? Yes, it's just one of many examples where cultural differences cause issues, and where two people consider themselves "good" and the other one "bad" and in turn, censor all speech, since both are racist in atleast some of the courts.
- JKCalhoun 4y agoI guess I'm suggesting each countries courts of course decide what's best for their country. You imply (but I am not convinced) that there are serious consequences for having one opinion or the other on these "cross country" online communities. I suspect instead that for the more nuanced issues like affirmative action there will just be the usual arguing back and forth and little else.
- account42 4y agoSome of us appreciate that the internet effectively allows for discussion that is less popular in their own country.
- Genghis_Khan 4y ago> The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building Of course you can. Especially if there's a fire. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- leoqa 4y agoVery interesting, thank you. I’m taking a law class at a local community college and have a research paper due next week- I think this is going to be my topic.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoHumanity has never had to deal with global echo chambers where individuals who are mostly harmless on their own can come together and feed on their common rancor.
- 876978095789789 4y ago> Humanity has never had to deal with global echo chambers where individuals who are mostly harmless on their own can come together and feed on their common rancor. Do you not realize that "echo chamber" describes this place, and any place with groupthink enforcement mechanisms (voting, karma, flagging, and excessive moderation) much more accurately than 4chan? For example, HN groupthink has endorsed low-carb and ketogenic diets almost since its inception, and as a consequence, has also promoted the dissemination of dangerous health misinformation, like LDL cholesterol denialism and downplaying the risks of excessive sodium and satrated fat consumption.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoI must have missed the last time HNers convinced themselves to start a race war by murdering a bunch of people.
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoI think that fat and cholesterol have killed more people than any kind of race war in the last decade.