7 ms·

I used to be a free speech absolutist, but now I believe phylosophical principles exist in service of humanity, not the other way around. If you consider that t

I used to be a free speech absolutist, but now I believe phylosophical principles exist in service of humanity, not the other way around. If you consider that the goal of russian propaganda is to help Russia succeed in genocide of a 40 million nation, I think it should be fairly easy to handle some censorship, at least until genocide is stopped.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
What philosophical principle justifies censorship, which is just propaganda through ommision? How can someone decide for themselves that they agree something is bad, if they aren't allowed to see it, or even know it exists? I don't think there is any philosophical principle that resloves to "and therefor we should commit ignorance"
- camgunz 3y ago
  I think the typical rejoinder here is Germany's denazification. There's a difference between preemptively censoring things and deciding some things are just wrong and not worth debating for the umpteenth time. FWIW we preemptively censor things all the time. Information is classified, we don't let you post plans to build nuclear or biological weapons, etc. And to broaden a little, we also have lots of speech restrictions and compulsions. Fraud is against the law and that's largely speech. Inciting imminent lawless action isn't allowed. We require nutrition facts on products, we require doctors to say things before performing abortions, we compel testimony, etc. I personally wouldn't like it if you posted my address and when I'm likely to be away. Speech is complicated, it's powerful, fundamental, and there are a lot of competing interests and principles.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    What does wrongness have to do with anything? No one in Germany studies the history of Nazis and how they came to be?
    - camgunz 3y ago
      Germany doesn't censor any mention of Nazism; they censor support for Nazism.
      - Brian_K_White 3y ago
        That is reassuringly sane. So who said anything about supporting? That was my whole original point, that if something is bad, it's if anything even more important not to censor information about it, not so thoroughly that it is actually removed from active and specific searches at least. That absolutely includes things that advocate, because those very statements are the bad thing that needs to be seen to be believed and understood. You can't just tell some kid who wasn't there "He rose to power and killed millions of Jews." It makes no sense and teaches no lesson. You have to show the crowd-pleasing speeches and other pro-nazi propaganda to show how attractive a bad thing can sound, to show how totally good and normal people just like you can end up cooperating with something wrong, to study and understand that aspect of the badness. Some people will study that so they can then do it, but I don't see how that changes anything because we're right back to ignorance is no answer. Making everyone else ignorant is even worse. It creates even more victims than the one actually doing something bad.
        camgunz 3y ago
        > You have to show the crowd-pleasing speeches and other pro-nazi propaganda They do. You just can't deny the holocaust, spread anti-semitism, etc. [0] My point, which I admittedly obscured, is that while there are things we censor and compel (which we mostly agree on), there are weirdly some things we don't censor that we also mostly agree on. Anti-semitism is a good example. There's no value in talking about it. Anti-semitic hate groups use the shield of freedom of speech to spread their lies and recruit members. Proponents will spam forums, WhatsApp groups, social media, etc in what is effectively a DDoS on fact checkers. The thing that fixes anti-semitism isn't letting them say whatever they want wherever they want, it's a Wikipedia page on anti-semitism and a ban everywhere else. It's also worth saying that while we're having a relatively academic debate, Jewish people, Black people, trans people, etc get to wade through a morass of hate on the internet which every so often leads to a mass murder. What's the value of that? [0]: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-antisemitic-hate-speech-nazi-propaganda-holocaust-denial/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
- eiiot 3y ago
  It can certainly be justified under a utilitarian framework…
r3trohack3r 3y ago
I think you cut to the core of it: genocide. Governments are entrusted with great power. Enough power to decide an entire class of people no longer deserve to live. Without checks and balances that hold the people we put in government accountable, that power will be abused. “It should be easy to handle some censorship” is where your point went off the rails. When you trust your government with the power to control the flow of information, you trust them with the power to hide their own actions from you - including genocide. You trust them to censor people who vocally oppose an unjust war. You trust them to censor people who report on broken checks and balances. You trust them to censor people who question their accumulation of power. History doesn’t care if you meant well. Our descendants who inherit these political systems won’t care if you meant well. They’ll remember the results of the system you build.
- ABCLAW 3y ago
  >When you trust your government with the power to control the flow of information, you trust them with the power to hide their own actions from you I think this is as false dilemma - no one's advocating that any institution or system that can regulate the flow of known bad information can operate without any constraints, oversight, etc. If we assume any exercise of power will ALWAYS be misused under any circumstance, then taken to the extreme we literally shouldn't let people exercise under the notion that they can and will use physical force to coerce people. So we can't run on that assumption; sometimes governments can use power over information to do good things, like prevent the spread of pro-genocide propaganda. We need to have a far more nuanced discussion about whether or not THIS instance of censorship is more positive or more negative.
  - r3trohack3r 3y ago
    > that can regulate the flow of known bad information > prevent the spread of pro-genocide propaganda This is a Motte and Bailey. Your introduction advocates for: regulating the spread of known bad information. In your second to last paragraph you substitute it with: prevent the spread of pro-genocide propaganda I’ll engage with your second point only if you yield that the _only_ form of information that is acceptable for a government to censor is speech that is directly and explicitly calling for genocide. Otherwise we are talking about the “known bad information” from your first paragraph. Does “bad” mean false? Or just malicious? Who decides it’s bad? How does it become “known.” As a citizen, are you allowed to challenge the classification of “bad” or does challenging the classification of “bad” itself count as “bad information?” What protections are there for keeping inconvenient truths about our government from being classified as “bad information?” > no one's advocating that any institution or system that can regulate the flow of known bad information can operate without any constraints, oversight, etc. I’m suggesting that’s exactly what people are advocating for. They may not know it. They may mean well.
creer 3y ago
Are you willing to change a philosophical principle - moral, ethical, fundamental, etc principle - because of ONE event. "At least" has a name. It's called "the war on X". It's easy to start and takes an extremely long time to correct - potentially indefinitely but at least longer than your life span.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

What philosophical principle justifies censorship, which is just propaganda through ommision? How can someone decide for themselves that they agree something is bad, if they aren't allowed to see it, or even know it exists? I don't think there is any philosophical principle that resloves to "and therefor we should commit ignorance"

camgunz 3y ago
I think the typical rejoinder here is Germany's denazification. There's a difference between preemptively censoring things and deciding some things are just wrong and not worth debating for the umpteenth time. FWIW we preemptively censor things all the time. Information is classified, we don't let you post plans to build nuclear or biological weapons, etc. And to broaden a little, we also have lots of speech restrictions and compulsions. Fraud is against the law and that's largely speech. Inciting imminent lawless action isn't allowed. We require nutrition facts on products, we require doctors to say things before performing abortions, we compel testimony, etc. I personally wouldn't like it if you posted my address and when I'm likely to be away. Speech is complicated, it's powerful, fundamental, and there are a lot of competing interests and principles.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  What does wrongness have to do with anything? No one in Germany studies the history of Nazis and how they came to be?
  - camgunz 3y ago
    Germany doesn't censor any mention of Nazism; they censor support for Nazism.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      That is reassuringly sane. So who said anything about supporting? That was my whole original point, that if something is bad, it's if anything even more important not to censor information about it, not so thoroughly that it is actually removed from active and specific searches at least. That absolutely includes things that advocate, because those very statements are the bad thing that needs to be seen to be believed and understood. You can't just tell some kid who wasn't there "He rose to power and killed millions of Jews." It makes no sense and teaches no lesson. You have to show the crowd-pleasing speeches and other pro-nazi propaganda to show how attractive a bad thing can sound, to show how totally good and normal people just like you can end up cooperating with something wrong, to study and understand that aspect of the badness. Some people will study that so they can then do it, but I don't see how that changes anything because we're right back to ignorance is no answer. Making everyone else ignorant is even worse. It creates even more victims than the one actually doing something bad.
      - camgunz 3y ago
        > You have to show the crowd-pleasing speeches and other pro-nazi propaganda They do. You just can't deny the holocaust, spread anti-semitism, etc. [0] My point, which I admittedly obscured, is that while there are things we censor and compel (which we mostly agree on), there are weirdly some things we don't censor that we also mostly agree on. Anti-semitism is a good example. There's no value in talking about it. Anti-semitic hate groups use the shield of freedom of speech to spread their lies and recruit members. Proponents will spam forums, WhatsApp groups, social media, etc in what is effectively a DDoS on fact checkers. The thing that fixes anti-semitism isn't letting them say whatever they want wherever they want, it's a Wikipedia page on anti-semitism and a ban everywhere else. It's also worth saying that while we're having a relatively academic debate, Jewish people, Black people, trans people, etc get to wade through a morass of hate on the internet which every so often leads to a mass murder. What's the value of that? [0]: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-antisemitic-hate-speech-nazi-propaganda-holocaust-denial/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
eiiot 3y ago
It can certainly be justified under a utilitarian framework…

r3trohack3r 3y ago

I think you cut to the core of it: genocide. Governments are entrusted with great power. Enough power to decide an entire class of people no longer deserve to live. Without checks and balances that hold the people we put in government accountable, that power will be abused. “It should be easy to handle some censorship” is where your point went off the rails. When you trust your government with the power to control the flow of information, you trust them with the power to hide their own actions from you - including genocide. You trust them to censor people who vocally oppose an unjust war. You trust them to censor people who report on broken checks and balances. You trust them to censor people who question their accumulation of power. History doesn’t care if you meant well. Our descendants who inherit these political systems won’t care if you meant well. They’ll remember the results of the system you build.

ABCLAW 3y ago
>When you trust your government with the power to control the flow of information, you trust them with the power to hide their own actions from you I think this is as false dilemma - no one's advocating that any institution or system that can regulate the flow of known bad information can operate without any constraints, oversight, etc. If we assume any exercise of power will ALWAYS be misused under any circumstance, then taken to the extreme we literally shouldn't let people exercise under the notion that they can and will use physical force to coerce people. So we can't run on that assumption; sometimes governments can use power over information to do good things, like prevent the spread of pro-genocide propaganda. We need to have a far more nuanced discussion about whether or not THIS instance of censorship is more positive or more negative.
- r3trohack3r 3y ago
  > that can regulate the flow of known bad information > prevent the spread of pro-genocide propaganda This is a Motte and Bailey. Your introduction advocates for: regulating the spread of known bad information. In your second to last paragraph you substitute it with: prevent the spread of pro-genocide propaganda I’ll engage with your second point only if you yield that the _only_ form of information that is acceptable for a government to censor is speech that is directly and explicitly calling for genocide. Otherwise we are talking about the “known bad information” from your first paragraph. Does “bad” mean false? Or just malicious? Who decides it’s bad? How does it become “known.” As a citizen, are you allowed to challenge the classification of “bad” or does challenging the classification of “bad” itself count as “bad information?” What protections are there for keeping inconvenient truths about our government from being classified as “bad information?” > no one's advocating that any institution or system that can regulate the flow of known bad information can operate without any constraints, oversight, etc. I’m suggesting that’s exactly what people are advocating for. They may not know it. They may mean well.

creer 3y ago

Are you willing to change a philosophical principle - moral, ethical, fundamental, etc principle - because of ONE event. "At least" has a name. It's called "the war on X". It's easy to start and takes an extremely long time to correct - potentially indefinitely but at least longer than your life span.