4 ms·

I think it's more fair to say that liberals believe that the 1A protects speaking truth to power, while the conservative idea is more the 1A protects saying thi

I think it's more fair to say that liberals believe that the 1A protects speaking truth to power, while the conservative idea is more the 1A protects saying things people don't like. America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals, and within the countries founding document -- the declaration of independence, the liberal idea of "social contract" was encoded. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) Liberals are suspicious of speech that violates the social contract, such as speech that is a prelude to violating other people's, like transgender people's, pursuit of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If you use your right to speech as a prelude to stripping other people of their rights, it is right for there to be consequences. The social contract in fact demands at least some degree of consequences, otherwise the social contract is useless because it's purpose is fundamentally to protect rights. In a democracy, should people be allowed to vote for a dictator who promises to dissolve the government? That's a really rough philosophical question. I consent to a democracy, but I don't consent to a monarchy. It's the paradox of democracy and paradox of the idea of a government that exists primarily to protect rights.

teh_infallible 2y ago
[flagged]
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  Why do you think that is? What do you think the end goal and justification is for using coercive force against someone resisting vaccines or coercive force against polluting companies?
  - userbinator 2y ago
    "The truth does not resist questioning."
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      Only between people acting in good faith.
- stouset 2y ago
  Liberals are tired of misinformation and disinformation. Vaccines and climate change aren’t “political orthodoxies”, they are—respectively—one of the greatest lifesaving innovations in all of medicine and one of the gravest threats to the stability of civilization as we know it. This is scientific reality. I don’t think that means speech critical of those things should be banned, but I also don’t think bad actors causing panic where none belongs (and complacency where some level of panic is warranted) is something we want running completely unchecked. I don’t know what the answer is, but part of me believes it might be nice if we could assign some level of responsibility for the consequences of speech, even when those consequences are diffuse.
sandworm101 2y ago
>> America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals Except that the first thing they did after gaining independence was to adopt the entire body of british common law, including basically all of the slander/liable jurisprudence. While it was certainly modified by the US constitution, they did not believe that every tom dick and harry should be able to tout lies about people unimpeded. Political satire was one thing, the british had already embraced that, but going after random civil servants or members of the public was not on. Calling judges or election workers criminals/pedos/traitors, as is the norm today, would not have been tolerated.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  Yes. Liberalism is fundamentally about the social contract, so those limits on speech are compatible with liberal ideals. It is very consistent with liberalism that objective lies are a punishable offense because they are violations of the social contract, similar as shouting fire in a crowded building when there is no fire, a tobacco salesman saying their product is healthy, or an opiate salesman telling doctors their product is not addictive. Of course that's idealistic because the truth in many situations is largely unknowable and the temptation to put government officials above the law is great. Reprisal for false accusations is a chilling effect for those making true accusations. That means there is a balancing act to be done. Both type 1 and type 2 errors are bad. Since America cannot effectively punish lairs, that weakness in our system is being actively exploited to great effect, you can read fox news court documents where they defend their right to lie. Unpunished lies give those who lie power, reduces societal trust, and drives division between members of society. But likewise true accusations must not experience reprisal because otherwise it gives those in positions of power a shield against consequences for their crimes.

teh_infallible 2y ago

[flagged]

hayst4ck 2y ago
Why do you think that is? What do you think the end goal and justification is for using coercive force against someone resisting vaccines or coercive force against polluting companies?
- userbinator 2y ago
  "The truth does not resist questioning."
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    Only between people acting in good faith.
stouset 2y ago
Liberals are tired of misinformation and disinformation. Vaccines and climate change aren’t “political orthodoxies”, they are—respectively—one of the greatest lifesaving innovations in all of medicine and one of the gravest threats to the stability of civilization as we know it. This is scientific reality. I don’t think that means speech critical of those things should be banned, but I also don’t think bad actors causing panic where none belongs (and complacency where some level of panic is warranted) is something we want running completely unchecked. I don’t know what the answer is, but part of me believes it might be nice if we could assign some level of responsibility for the consequences of speech, even when those consequences are diffuse.

sandworm101 2y ago

>> America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals Except that the first thing they did after gaining independence was to adopt the entire body of british common law, including basically all of the slander/liable jurisprudence. While it was certainly modified by the US constitution, they did not believe that every tom dick and harry should be able to tout lies about people unimpeded. Political satire was one thing, the british had already embraced that, but going after random civil servants or members of the public was not on. Calling judges or election workers criminals/pedos/traitors, as is the norm today, would not have been tolerated.

hayst4ck 2y ago
Yes. Liberalism is fundamentally about the social contract, so those limits on speech are compatible with liberal ideals. It is very consistent with liberalism that objective lies are a punishable offense because they are violations of the social contract, similar as shouting fire in a crowded building when there is no fire, a tobacco salesman saying their product is healthy, or an opiate salesman telling doctors their product is not addictive. Of course that's idealistic because the truth in many situations is largely unknowable and the temptation to put government officials above the law is great. Reprisal for false accusations is a chilling effect for those making true accusations. That means there is a balancing act to be done. Both type 1 and type 2 errors are bad. Since America cannot effectively punish lairs, that weakness in our system is being actively exploited to great effect, you can read fox news court documents where they defend their right to lie. Unpunished lies give those who lie power, reduces societal trust, and drives division between members of society. But likewise true accusations must not experience reprisal because otherwise it gives those in positions of power a shield against consequences for their crimes.