3 ms·
I usually just quote Snowden instead: “Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different
by throw-qqqqq 9mo ago
I usually just quote Snowden instead:
“Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
- HellDunkel 9mo agoNot as clever as it may sound. It is perfectly possible that someone has nothing to hide in a good way, whereas someone without anything to say for himself cannot be easily imagined as a good faith social individual. So in a way this is comparing apples to bad apples and claiming they are perfectly equal.
- ambicapter 9mo ago> whereas someone without anything to say for himself cannot be easily imagined as a good faith social individual Huh? You can’t imagine boring people as a “good faith social individual”?
- HellDunkel 9mo agoIf you have nothing so say for yourself that is more than beeing boring, it is beeing indifferent which is just one step away from amoral.
- tigerlily 9mo agoOr acutely stressed. Some people clam up as a stress response.
- charcircuit 9mo agoI feel "people should not have have consequences for what they say", and "people should be able to avoid consequences for what they have done", are separate concepts. One does not require believing in the other. For example I believe the former, but for the latter I believe everyone should be punished when they break the law.
- JoshTriplett 9mo agoPeople should have consequences for what they say, but not from the government. You should never be prosecuted for what you say, no matter how vile. But other people are free to exercise their rights in response, including freedom of association.
- charcircuit 9mo agoThat was a typo in my post. Fixed.
- dns_snek 9mo agoSo if public figures with a sizeable following start calling for you and your family to be chased down and gutted like animals, should they legally be allowed to do that? Do you actually believe that?
- Fnoord 9mo ago> I feel "people should not have have consequences for what they say", and "people should be able to avoid consequences for what they have done", are separate concepts. 'Saying' is an example of 'doing', and the moderation to speech happens after the fact, including (yes) in USA. Consider the case of a person yelling fire or 'he's got a gun!' when there is none, or a death threat.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]