5 ms·
We have concepts like “the First Amendment” and “standing” and so on exclusively to build and maintain a strong society. All of these things are subject, at the
by ethanbond 3y ago
We have concepts like “the First Amendment” and “standing” and so on exclusively to build and maintain a strong society. All of these things are subject, at the end of the day, to the assessment of whether they are effective at preventing bad things and preserving good things.
If, for example, 100% of people under the age of 18 commit suicide within one month of being on Instagram, these arguments correctly would not prevent action against Instagram. We’d simply find a way to prevent kids from going on IG while weakening as little as possible the First Amendment’s protections of things that are good for our society.
The only point of debate here is where each individual draws the line.
From my observation, it seems people who are close to children a lot (parents, teachers, medical professionals) have been screaming their fucking brains out about this problem in ever-increasing intensity for years and years. People who are not close to children (20-something year old tech workers and HN browsers) think it’s all made up.
- perihelions 3y ago- "exclusively to build and maintain a strong society" Human rights (i.e. freedom of speech) aren't utilitarian concepts for achieving some secondary end-goal, like a desired social outcome. They're an end-goal in themselves. That's the core value judgement of free societies: the recognition of human dignity, human autonomy, as an *intrinsic* moral good to be protected at great cost.
- ethanbond 3y agoThat belief persists because it’s good at building strong societies
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]