3 ms·
> how do we solve for the society-wide censorship problem Or: how do we "solve for" the people-that-want-absolute-freedom-of-speech problem? Because that's the
by tgv 3y ago
> how do we solve for the society-wide censorship problem
Or: how do we "solve for" the people-that-want-absolute-freedom-of-speech problem? Because that's the other side of the coin. Some mild restrictions on what can or cannot be said in public environments is not tyranny.
- ttt3ts 3y agoMaybe you should read the text of the first amendment?
- chomp 3y agoI don’t think you understand the first amendment - there are numerous Supreme Court decisions that place limits: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, speech integral to criminal conduct, threats, child pornography. You cannot have absolutism in a well functioning country.
- MightyBuzzard 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shaftoe 3y agoMild is subjective. Truth isn't determined by a majority. Tyranny is on a dimmer switch.
- tgv 3y ago> Truth isn't determined by a majority. It's not about truth. It's about stability, safety. How do you keep a bunch of pretty hard-core fascist propagandists from stirring up the people without any repercussion? A government needs control, or it loses its legitimacy. I think that's at least implied in the main text of the constitution.
- sneak 3y ago> How do you keep a bunch of pretty hard-core fascist propagandists from stirring up the people without any repercussion? A million Iraqis probably have the same question. Preserving the ability of the public to organize and publish freely is probably one of the foundational elements of the solution to keeping a populace from getting so hijacked. The problem is that the incumbent state and military fits your description much better and more often than any upstart group.
- anon291 3y agoI honestly don't understand why anyone with this attitude wants to live in the United States, when the default worldwide is this, and the United States is the sole exception.
- krapp 3y agoThe US is not and has never been an exception, it has always recognized legal limits on free speech[0]. You may disagree with those limits but they've always been there. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThe US is the exception in the sense that it is the only country that has seriously tried to narrow down these limits to what is absolutely necessary.
- krapp 3y agoObviously not. "Seriously" and "absolutely necessary" are subjective terms, essentially matters of personal opinion, and plenty of Americans argue that the limits in the US are either too loose or too rigid (see the current debates around social media, Section 230 and whether or not private platforms should be forced to act as common carriers.) Meanwhile, cultures differ, and people outside of the US may well see their own governments' drawing the lines elsewhere, for instance banning of hate speech and Nazi propaganda, as "absolutely necessary."
- amadeuspagel 3y agoYeah, this attitude that what sort of limit is absolutely necessary is "subjective", "essentially a matter of personal opinion" is exactly what the US (not every single american, but american first amendment jurisprudence) is the exception to.