4 ms·
> If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than
by foldr 9mo ago
> If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
My natural sympathies lie with this position, but is it evidence based? At least currently, more problems seem to be caused by disinformation and hate speech than are caused by government censorship (at least in the US and EU).
That’s not to say that the dangers associated with disinformation and hate speech necessarily justify censoring them (any more than the dangers associated with alcohol necessarily justified prohibition), but if the argument for an absolutist stance on free speech is going to be the consequentialist argument that it’s the less dangerous option, then this has to be evaluated empirically.
- laughing_man 9mo agoHow do you propose to evaluate something like that empirically?
- foldr 9mo agoOk, maybe 'empirically' was a bit pompous. What I meant is, if you're saying that X is more dangerous than Y, then that's not a pure statement of principle, it's a claim about the real world. Right now, we're seeing a pretty big advertisement for the dangers of disinformation and hate speech, whereas political discourse in the US and EU remains pretty open. You could say that this is a blip and that in the long run, any form of censorship is more dangerous. But I think someone making your argument should at least acknowledge that present circumstances might appear to refute it.
- laughing_man 9mo agoI don't see hate speech and disinformation as much of a danger. There are plenty of countervailing voices on the internet. And we have plenty of evidence from literally all of human history on the dangers of censorship. Totalitarianism and free speech can't coexist.
- foldr 9mo agoIt depends on how you feel about the current US administration. It’s there in significant part because of what I’d regard as disinformation and hate speech. It seems pretty dangerous to me, and there are historical parallels for that danger too. Meanwhile, as you say, people in the US and Europe are able to express all kinds of political opinions online, and we don’t seem to be in any kind of crisis caused by European censorship of hate speech.
- judahmeek 9mo agoOkay, but what if there was a strong robust mechanism for removing disinformation and hate speech from the internet & the current US administration was in charge of it? Because if you're wrong & the current US administration was elected for other reasons than disinformation and hate speech, which could very well be more symptoms than cause, then our situation would be worse, not better. Don't forget that our current laws & regulations would have been enough to stop Trump's election if not for Merrick Garland & the Supreme Court. Figuratively, American politics works like a pendulum. Attempts to weaken the First Amendment are like placing an obstacle directly in the path of that pendulum.
- foldr 9mo agoAll fair points. What I’m saying is that it’s no longer obvious that limited ‘censorship’ of hate speech and disinformation creates a greater danger than its objects. You’re making a positive argument based on real world facts that it is in fact more dangerous, which is fine. I’m not trying to argue one side or the other here so much as point out that it is necessary to do what you’re doing in order to make a convincing case.