3 ms·
it's dangerous to equate freedom in freedom of speech as having less restrictions, because then the only speech you will hear is the one from people who can rec
by ponorin 3y ago
it's dangerous to equate freedom in freedom of speech as having less restrictions, because then the only speech you will hear is the one from people who can recover from whatever bullsh1t they spit. just like "free market" needs strong regulations to prevent monopoly and price gouging, freedom of speech should be about levelling the playing field and not as an excuse for bad takes. in that regard, united states isn't even the most free in terms of speech, it only has the least restrictions. indeed you see cases where the supposed land of freedom severely limits free speech such as dmca (specifically the anti-circumvention law) or charging edward snowden for feloney.
- devwastaken 3y ago"bad takes" do not rise to a level where censorship is warranted. Humans communicate to learn, they are often wrong and convinced of wrong things. This is necessary to learn what a good take is. The moral panic of this age is synonymous to mcarthyism and the ages past. It never worked and as demonstrates today backfired to whole generations no longer believing their country or government are to be trusted.
- Georgelemental 3y ago> just like "free market" needs strong regulations to prevent monopoly and price gouging, freedom of speech should be about levelling the playing field and not as an excuse for bad takes. No, freedom of speech is actually unique in that there can be no "reasonable" restrictions on it. This is because determining whether a particular restriction is "reasonable" would require free discussion about that restriction, which is impossible as long as the restriction is in place.