3 ms·
Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censorsh
by Dig1t 3y ago
Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censorship. Censorship just convinces people even more that something nefarious is going on. Especially in the case of elections because the people doing the censoring are the ones whose power is being questioned. Similarly, overt censorship only emboldens hateful groups. The only way to combat these bad ideas is to allow them to be discussed and defeated in the greater marketplace of ideas.
e.g. someone going down the path of antisemitism will not get a chance to hear the other side of the argument unless the topic is allowed to be discussed openly.
There are other nice examples of Klan members making conversions after having open discussions with people in a safe environment, when they were reached out to. This type of conversation is not possible in an environment where top-down censorship is happening.
If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power, and if you allow it’s use for good intentions, eventually it will be used for evil.
But consider a future where an election really is rigged, I’m not saying it happened in the US, but it DOES happen in many countries such as Russia and it is not a complete impossibility. Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed. The people in power will be able to keep power and silence any dissent.
Imagine a future where a demagogue attempts to seize power and create a dictatorship, if there is an established precedent that it’s okay to silence speech for “safety” reasons, all the person has to do is classify all dissent as unsafe or racist, or whatever the moral panic of the day might be.
The US has not existed for very long, most countries have had to fend off dictatorship in their history and it’s not impossible that we will face the same thing at some point. Protected free speech is one of the best tools we have to fend it off. Speaking truth to power is more important than protecting people’s feelings.
- hackerlight 3y ago> Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censorship. Censorship just convinces people even more that something nefarious is going on. Holding aside whether to use the word "censorship" or "moderation" (and whichever word we choose is politically motivated rhetoric), you're making an unsupported empirical claim that I find questionable. Ideas are contagious, and very bad ideas are capable of spreading and doing significant damage. See all the disastrous revolutions that killed millions of people, 20th century fascism, among other examples of bad ideas that spread via free speech. This speech was a critical part of the chain of causality that led to mass death. Contrary to popular sloganeering, the reality is that more speech doesn't always correct bad ideas, and in many cases has no impact. > If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power That's correct, but how did those dictators gain power in the first place? Often via speech. They used their freedoms (of speech) to undermine freedom (of speech). Hitler wouldn't have gotten into power if he didn't convince over 30% of the population to vote for him via the words that came out of his mouth. This is the Tolerance Paradox, which has unfortunately become cliched but is still as relevant as ever. > Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed. You've constructed a false binary. I don't think anyone wants to make it illegal or impossible to question elections. The best idea I've heard is that there needs to be some trial in front of a court, where the evidence is brought forward. If the person lied, they go to prison for doing damage to democracy -- analogous to defamation being a crime (but in this instance, the defamation is against society more broadly//the state, instead of an individual). If the person told the truth, then some other people go to jail for rigging an election. If the person made an innocent mistake; well, that's also up to the courts to decide. What I don't want is a media circus, where nothing gets resolved and everyone becomes cynical.