3 ms·
I'm all for free speech (which has to include expressions I find reprehensible), but a declaration like this doesn't speak to me. What we know is that constant
by vincent-manis 3y ago
I'm all for free speech (which has to include expressions I find reprehensible), but a declaration like this doesn't speak to me. What we know is that constant repetition of falsities or distortions can effect changes in the public. Consider for example how the “genteel antisemitism” in pre-WWI Germany was turned, via Hitler's and the Nazis' Big Lie into Kristallnacht and eventually mass murder.
When this Declaration speaks disparagingly of “disinformation experts” and “fact checkers”, I have to ask whether some of these people might actually be correcting errors in the statements they are analyzing. Whether they are doing this in the service of Big Media or the Great Pumpkin is irrelevant: or do these individuals and organizations not also have the benefits of free speech?
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” By blurring opinion and fact, this Declaration is not helpful.
We must all be vigilant to protect the right of all to free expression. And we may differ strongly in what forms of expression should not be protected, notably the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. I don't feel that this Declaration adequately deals with this issue.
- dabluecaboose 3y ago>what forms of expression should not be protected, notably the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre A perennially terrible example to whip out in these discussions, given that it's a quote from potentially one of the most backwards and odious SCOTUS decisions (Schenck v. US) that upheld a conviction against a man protesting the draft. It was later was overturned (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
- vincent-manis 3y agoI don't disagree that Schenck is awful, but I still think that shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre is unacceptable.
- dabluecaboose 3y agoUnacceptable, maybe. But under many circumstances, still constitutionally protected despite being unpalatable.
- mikewarot 3y ago> By blurring opinion and fact, this Declaration is not helpful. There are a lot of things that were often stated as if they were facts, that turned out to be wrong, with deadly results. The "experts" are only shown to be wrong well after the fact in many cases, only because of free inquiry. We need free discourse if we are to have a free society. Otherwise, we end up with blind faith in "Experts" whose statements can't lawfully be falsified.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ertian 3y ago> When this Declaration speaks disparagingly of “disinformation experts” and “fact checkers” It speaks disparagingly of "disinformation experts" and "fact checkers" working with the government to guide censorship.