4 ms·

See people, this is why free speech must be absolute. The moment you let someone become the gatekeeper, they will absolutely use that leverage for their own ben

See people, this is why free speech must be absolute. The moment you let someone become the gatekeeper, they will absolutely use that leverage for their own benefit, at your expense. What is worse? Allowing fringe boneheads to spew hate and lies or allowing powerful people to do evil and damage livelihoods with zero culpability?

AlexandrB 3y ago
Show me one country where free speech has ever been absolute. At a minimum "fighting words" and libel/slander usually have criminal or civil penalties against them. Then there's stuff like IP law where reproducing certain speech can have civil or even criminal penalties. Statements like "free speech must be absolute" are basically zero content because they don't engage with the nuance of the debate, but they sure sound good.
- splitstud 3y ago
  [dead]
- potamic 3y ago
  We most certainly don't, but it's an interesting thought exercise whether it's a better model than everything else we have seen so far. Of course, it asks for very different trade-offs. For instance, you should be willing to forgoe libel/slander laws and allow people to smear the shit out of each other. It means people will need to figure out for themselves whom to listen to, but honestly, I don't think the situation is any different today. It also means scrutinising things like copyright and questioning whether they are a net value to society. These policies have since forever been driven by corporations to serve their own interests. There's good arguments to be made that their concerns about loss in revenue are largely overblown. You can implement policies that restrict monetisation of copyright content without putting restrictions on what individuals can express. Of course these are fairly naive ideas, and there are likely many more problems we haven't touched here, but the point is that there are options. It is worth thinking about them because the alternative as we see doesn't seem to be working out. There's a trend around the world where countries are moving more and more towards authoritarianism. At the same time, the wealth gap is ever increasing and I don't think these two are unrelated. I think the common people are getting an overall raw deal on this planet and really need to think through what policies will benefit them most.
  - alpha_squared 3y ago
    > For instance, you should be willing to forgoe libel/slander laws and allow people to smear the shit out of each other. It means people will need to figure out for themselves whom to listen to, but honestly, I don't think the situation is any different today. Anyone who's had a conversation with someone who was relentlessly bullied should know this is how you increase suicide rates and/or mass shootings. These are perspectives that you, personally, are comfortable with. I, however, am not. It would be unfair to advocate that myself, and many others, are subjected to what can be considered a living hell.
mpalmer 3y ago
Both of those choices put us in the latter situation.
jonny_eh 3y ago
Good thing we have a "free speech absolutist" running Twitter.
cbsmith 3y ago
> See people, this is why free speech must be absolute. No, it's why, in a lot of cases, free speech doesn't really work the way you think it works. Private interests have all kinds of ways to influence speech that don't require the threat of violence.
AlecSchueler 3y ago
Can you have it while still controlling outright malicious messaging? Incitement for example.
vharuck 3y ago
>Allowing fringe boneheads to spew hate and lies or allowing powerful people to do evil and damage livelihoods with zero culpability? Powerful people can do evil and damage livelihoods with zero culpability under free speech absolutism. Fox News just paid a large sum because they harmed a company's business with (repeated and knowingly false) speech. We don't even need absolutism to see zero culpability. I personally believe my representative shares blame in the deaths during the January 6th riot, because he disgustingly egged on the "stop the steal" movement. Despite that, he won't be charged with anything because of freedom of speech. I'm not okay with this specific result, but I do accept it because the alternative is a frightening world (people are convicted for kicking off a chain of dangerous events because "We just know" they understood the consequences). Everything, including speech, is used by powerful people to benefit themselves at your expense.
goodpoint 3y ago
> this is why free speech must be absolute Absolutely not. > What is worse? Allowing fringe boneheads to spew hate and lies or allowing powerful people to do evil and damage livelihoods with zero culpability? Was this meant to be sarcasm? How about a third option: no space for hate and lies and also no dictators.

AlexandrB 3y ago

Show me one country where free speech has ever been absolute. At a minimum "fighting words" and libel/slander usually have criminal or civil penalties against them. Then there's stuff like IP law where reproducing certain speech can have civil or even criminal penalties. Statements like "free speech must be absolute" are basically zero content because they don't engage with the nuance of the debate, but they sure sound good.

splitstud 3y ago
[dead]
potamic 3y ago
We most certainly don't, but it's an interesting thought exercise whether it's a better model than everything else we have seen so far. Of course, it asks for very different trade-offs. For instance, you should be willing to forgoe libel/slander laws and allow people to smear the shit out of each other. It means people will need to figure out for themselves whom to listen to, but honestly, I don't think the situation is any different today. It also means scrutinising things like copyright and questioning whether they are a net value to society. These policies have since forever been driven by corporations to serve their own interests. There's good arguments to be made that their concerns about loss in revenue are largely overblown. You can implement policies that restrict monetisation of copyright content without putting restrictions on what individuals can express. Of course these are fairly naive ideas, and there are likely many more problems we haven't touched here, but the point is that there are options. It is worth thinking about them because the alternative as we see doesn't seem to be working out. There's a trend around the world where countries are moving more and more towards authoritarianism. At the same time, the wealth gap is ever increasing and I don't think these two are unrelated. I think the common people are getting an overall raw deal on this planet and really need to think through what policies will benefit them most.
- alpha_squared 3y ago
  > For instance, you should be willing to forgoe libel/slander laws and allow people to smear the shit out of each other. It means people will need to figure out for themselves whom to listen to, but honestly, I don't think the situation is any different today. Anyone who's had a conversation with someone who was relentlessly bullied should know this is how you increase suicide rates and/or mass shootings. These are perspectives that you, personally, are comfortable with. I, however, am not. It would be unfair to advocate that myself, and many others, are subjected to what can be considered a living hell.

mpalmer 3y ago

Both of those choices put us in the latter situation.

jonny_eh 3y ago

Good thing we have a "free speech absolutist" running Twitter.

cbsmith 3y ago

> See people, this is why free speech must be absolute. No, it's why, in a lot of cases, free speech doesn't really work the way you think it works. Private interests have all kinds of ways to influence speech that don't require the threat of violence.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

Can you have it while still controlling outright malicious messaging? Incitement for example.

vharuck 3y ago

>Allowing fringe boneheads to spew hate and lies or allowing powerful people to do evil and damage livelihoods with zero culpability? Powerful people can do evil and damage livelihoods with zero culpability under free speech absolutism. Fox News just paid a large sum because they harmed a company's business with (repeated and knowingly false) speech. We don't even need absolutism to see zero culpability. I personally believe my representative shares blame in the deaths during the January 6th riot, because he disgustingly egged on the "stop the steal" movement. Despite that, he won't be charged with anything because of freedom of speech. I'm not okay with this specific result, but I do accept it because the alternative is a frightening world (people are convicted for kicking off a chain of dangerous events because "We just know" they understood the consequences). Everything, including speech, is used by powerful people to benefit themselves at your expense.

goodpoint 3y ago

> this is why free speech must be absolute Absolutely not. > What is worse? Allowing fringe boneheads to spew hate and lies or allowing powerful people to do evil and damage livelihoods with zero culpability? Was this meant to be sarcasm? How about a third option: no space for hate and lies and also no dictators.