4 ms·
I agree. It always sounds a bit phony when people bring up the "freedom of speech" defense, as in "if we relinquish our right to use slurs, we won't be able to
by RodericDay 13y ago
I agree. It always sounds a bit phony when people bring up the "freedom of speech" defense, as in "if we relinquish our right to use slurs, we won't be able to topple authoritarian tyrannical governments".
The general idea is not worthless, but it's disconnected from reality.
- betterunix 13y agoIt is not about toppling authoritarian governments. The right to speak freely is important for any democratic system to function. People have to be able to voice their complaints and criticisms. The problem is that any system that could be used to prevent people from making rape threats on the Internet could and inevitably would be used to silence various forms of dissent. We have seen this sort of thing before: http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/mark-fiore-can-win-a-pulitzer-prize-but-he-cant-get-his-iphone-cartoon-app-past-apples-satire-police/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/mark-fiore-can-win-a-pulitz...
- scholia 13y agoYour example has nothing to do with the law, and dissent wasn't being silenced. It was entirely down to Apple, which has made a commercial decision not to distribute certain types of material. This doesn't prevent the same material being distributed by other means. Yes, Apple is the same as Walmart in laying the dead hand of censorship on popular culture with the aim of increasing its own profits, but in most cases, there is not a legal compulsion to do so.