3 ms·

> People freely and openly expressing themselves is the only way a democracy can really function. There is a reason that the 1st Amendment is at the top of the

> People freely and openly expressing themselves is the only way a democracy can really function. There is a reason that the 1st Amendment is at the top of the Bill of Rights. The problem is, if you don't make sure that there is at least a common baseline of decency, eventually the one willing to fight the dirtiest will win out. "Anything goes, no repercussions" will always lead to a destructive death spiral as politicians and candidates will appeal to lower and lower emotions to score votes, and the ones who feel it most are usually those in a lower position of society: LGBT, migrants, even pregnant women. We've seen that in Germany in the events running up to 1933, we're seeing it across Europe now with the rise of the far-right willing to do literally anything including running on complete and utter lies (worst example: Brexit and the infamous NHS bus), we're seeing it in the US with the transformation of the GOP into MAGA and the unholy crusade of Evangelicals/White Christian Nationalists ("Project 2025") against everyone who is not like them. And on top of that you got the threat of "stochastic terrorism" - basically, speech that is legal in most jurisdictions, but powerful enough in its message to convince deranged people to act and kill [1]. The US and the UK are the only developed countries in the world which still run on their original constitutions and their principles from centuries ago: a time in which it was completely infeasible to even think about a technology that would allow literally all the village idiots from all over the world to communicate with - and radicalize! - each other, and it was generally assumed that institutions of a government could reasonably rely on other institutions of the government to follow the written and unwritten rules. Everyone else has updated their constitutions in the meantime, mostly due to acts of war, and used the chance to update their systems to learn from the past and its deficiencies. > - "If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams Well, we'll see how that one works out in November this year. The people behind "Project 2025" [2] have made it very, very clear on where they want to take the US - first, purge everyone they deem to be a threat to them from the bureaucracy, and then transition the US into a Christian theocratic dictatorship. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/stochastic-terrorism https://www.britannica.com/topic/stochastic-terrorism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

fch42 3y ago
I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none. It runs ancient law / legal precedence; As example, the current government has used "Henry VIIIth powers" (basically ... sovereign edicts) more than once in the last decade. But the UK body of law doesn't denote anything specifically as "constitutional". That said, it has a strong (legal) history on somewhat-free speech, more recent libel laws notwithstanding, more recent "hate speech" laws notwithstanding. Free speech alone though only helps public discourse if there is no attempt to "balance" differing views. Trying that has the opposite effect; instead of pointing out flaws and lies in any argument, the mediator simply "gives equal airtime" to conflicting views. That's the perfect way to polarize - choose whom you're with, and whom you're against. Political commentary is rather important, if it's missing, people miss out. Don't _think_ about what they say. Don't look for common ground. Don't look for lunacies in any side. Just ... pick, ok ? We've shown you both, so ...
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none. Germany doesn't have a "constitution" either, and so doesn't Israel, we run on "basic laws" instead which are functionally equivalent. And the UK instead runs on the entire body of its truly ancient laws, court decisions and international treaties. But no one would argue that either of the three nations is not a democracy or a constitutional state (i.e. a state where individuals and legal entities enjoy a reasonably common set of protections). > Free speech alone though only helps public discourse if there is no attempt to "balance" differing views. Trying that has the opposite effect; instead of pointing out flaws and lies in any argument, the mediator simply "gives equal airtime" to conflicting views. That's the perfect way to polarize - choose whom you're with, and whom you're against. There is another bad aspect in "balancing" itself, perfectly illustrated by "flat earth" believers. We don't go and give people who believe that the earth is flat equal airtime to those believing we're on a globe, in fact we don't give them any airtime (except when we need to fill some airtime by laughing about ridiculously dumb people) - but there are enough reckless / profit-addicted media that give airtime to COVID deniers, antivaxxers, "great replacement" and other conspiracy spreaders. Democracy itself can only work on a common set of core beliefs and truths. Once lies are allowed to be part of democratic discourse, the defenders of democracy will have to spend way more of their share of airtime to refute the lies instead of presenting their point of view - a phenomenon/rhetoric tactic known as "firehose of falsehoods", basically flooding the argument with lies (which stick with your followers thanks to repetition as an additional bonus) and making it impossible for the opponent to present their ideas. And sadly, there are more than enough media, politicians and people accepting this tactic.

fch42 3y ago

I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none. It runs ancient law / legal precedence; As example, the current government has used "Henry VIIIth powers" (basically ... sovereign edicts) more than once in the last decade. But the UK body of law doesn't denote anything specifically as "constitutional". That said, it has a strong (legal) history on somewhat-free speech, more recent libel laws notwithstanding, more recent "hate speech" laws notwithstanding. Free speech alone though only helps public discourse if there is no attempt to "balance" differing views. Trying that has the opposite effect; instead of pointing out flaws and lies in any argument, the mediator simply "gives equal airtime" to conflicting views. That's the perfect way to polarize - choose whom you're with, and whom you're against. Political commentary is rather important, if it's missing, people miss out. Don't _think_ about what they say. Don't look for common ground. Don't look for lunacies in any side. Just ... pick, ok ? We've shown you both, so ...

mschuster91 3y ago
> I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none. Germany doesn't have a "constitution" either, and so doesn't Israel, we run on "basic laws" instead which are functionally equivalent. And the UK instead runs on the entire body of its truly ancient laws, court decisions and international treaties. But no one would argue that either of the three nations is not a democracy or a constitutional state (i.e. a state where individuals and legal entities enjoy a reasonably common set of protections). > Free speech alone though only helps public discourse if there is no attempt to "balance" differing views. Trying that has the opposite effect; instead of pointing out flaws and lies in any argument, the mediator simply "gives equal airtime" to conflicting views. That's the perfect way to polarize - choose whom you're with, and whom you're against. There is another bad aspect in "balancing" itself, perfectly illustrated by "flat earth" believers. We don't go and give people who believe that the earth is flat equal airtime to those believing we're on a globe, in fact we don't give them any airtime (except when we need to fill some airtime by laughing about ridiculously dumb people) - but there are enough reckless / profit-addicted media that give airtime to COVID deniers, antivaxxers, "great replacement" and other conspiracy spreaders. Democracy itself can only work on a common set of core beliefs and truths. Once lies are allowed to be part of democratic discourse, the defenders of democracy will have to spend way more of their share of airtime to refute the lies instead of presenting their point of view - a phenomenon/rhetoric tactic known as "firehose of falsehoods", basically flooding the argument with lies (which stick with your followers thanks to repetition as an additional bonus) and making it impossible for the opponent to present their ideas. And sadly, there are more than enough media, politicians and people accepting this tactic.