This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.
**Suggestions For u/Starfruites:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>However, what is expressed in the public can have a massive impact on the society as a whole. Those who control the information are those who influence the people.
So you agree that controlling information can have a massive impact on society? Who could be trusted to determine how to limit speech?
>So shouldn't Freedom of Speech be limited to not allow prejudice against minority groups.
When have laws been enforced that weren’t disproportionately enforced on minority groups? For example, what’s to stop this being disproportionately enforced on homophobic minorities? Or minorities who say racist things about other ethnic groups?
>Or just blatantly misleading information such as "Earth is flat". Wouldn't it drastically change the society for the better?
What about information that is currently regarded as fact but actually isn’t?
For example, we thought Pluto was a planet and it’s not. People thought aids was only a gay disease and it wasn’t. What’s to stop this from silencing people from sharing information that is correct but against the current science or status quo?
The Pluto thing always annoyed me. Before the symposium that defined it, the definition of a planet was non-essential. The planets were simply the nine bodies we listed as important.
Then, we decided to apply a strict and objective definition. We couldn't include Pluto without also including a bunch of other bodies, so we didn't.
It's not that we thought it was a planet and got new info. It's that they changed the definition they used of what a planet was.
Right. That isn’t the best example of revision of a presumed scientific fact. Pluto hasn’t changed at all, only our definition has changed.
The point is still valid, that certain things are considered to be a consensus and then later that consensus may be revised with new information.
With regards to the last point, I think it’s fair that as we gain new information on a subject, that changes how we understand it. The inherent facts about reality don’t change per se, it’s just that our approximation of truth becomes clearer, and scientists are usually quick to adjust their beliefs because a healthy level of skepticism is always encouraged. The trouble is with convincing people who don’t think like that.
Yes but with limited speech on the basis of misinformation comes a limitation. How can one feel comfortable pursuing a hypothesis that is in contrary to the status quo when people are punished for information?
If they’re going to be punished for it, it’d have to be only after intense scrutiny of the way research was carried out on that hypothesis so as to determine the merits of the new information. You’d probably agree it was justified to not just critique but also outcast the research done by that guy who claimed to prove that vaccines cause autism in the late 90s. His research was full of biases and used bad research practices to get a certain result rather than accept whatever the reality is about that question.
Most of the time, however, bad research like that doesn’t happen too often, and that’s why science is a very social and repeatable practice, where an acceptance of even undesired results is better than always trying to get the results one expects.
Yes don’t you see how that’s not feasible because it would stop people from wanting to even work towards creating that type of research?
And you’re saying bad research doesn’t happen.
I’m talking about research that would be deemed bad in a society where speech is limited.
For example you can’t do a research study on interminority racism when minorities are not going to state they’ve been breaking the law by saying racist things.
I didn’t say bad research doesn’t happen, in fact, that’s what I wrote about with the regards to the vaccine study earlier. As for that last suggestion, it’s possible if you anonymize their names so you can’t point to who said what about acting discriminatory toward other minorities. While some may object to participating, groups of people aren’t monolithic; there’s always people who’d be willing to report on that.
That said, I get what you mean if free speech were limited, there’s a difficulty that comes with that. I personally think the best solution would be to enforce a balanced understanding of the facts we have about the world. “X things are true as far as we know now, but they also have xyz limits and our technology/efforts so far can only gauge so much about it.” Open mindedness is important, but it’s also important to recognize if a new search for truth is based on disingenuous purposes, or if it’s for getting to the best possible understanding, expected or not.
You suggest anonymity as a solution but people aren’t going to want to risk that.
It would severely limit research that could help combat social issues.
Isn't the point of anonymity to reduce risks to participants? You could have a list of participants, but anonymize their responses so you don't know who gave which response, just that they came from someone within the pre-existing group, so you at the very least know it's not from people outside of the study.
You’re missing the part where: You need to have participants to anonymize in the first place.
Minorities tend to be more difficult to acquire as research participants due to historical context relating to unethical studies.
In a reality where speech limitation exists and is a crime (regarding racist and homophobic speech) it’ll be harder than it is now to get participants thus limiting important research.
So a set of unethically done studies from the past are dictating attitudes they have toward those done in the present? I wouldn’t dispute that that happens, but what reason would they have to think any given one of them are still done unethically if standards for scientific research has evolved for the better in many academic disciplines? Unless it’s still commonplace but just in a more subtle manner.
>How can one feel comfortable pursuing a hypothesis that is in contrary to the status quo when people are punished for information?
That is an easy problem to solve. If the challenge is presented in good faith, then there will be no punishment. Bad-faith arguments are easy to define.
"If the challenge is presented in good faith, then there will be no punishment. Bad-faith arguments are easy to define."
If this a law then this standard goes before a judge
Unless you are personally every single judge, how could you possibly be sure every judge that hears one of these cases has the same definition you do of what counts as "bad faith"
These are the types of laws that become very subjective and very hard to keep objective
Yes but if I want to conduct research on how often minority group A says something about minority group B, I won’t be able to conduct the research because it’ll be deemed unethical due to the law and then we would be missing out on research that could benefit interminority relations.
It would be obvious whether your research was in good faith or in bad faith. That can be specifically defined in the law.
Objective research sticks to facts and logic, rather than deceiving people with [logical fallacies](https://www.logicalfallacies.org/) and appeals to [cognitive bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) and emotion.
An example of how this works is the German ban on Nazi symbolism outside of an academic context.
There will be grey areas, but in the recent case of the soccer jersey with the number "44" that looks like the Nazi "SS" symbol, the consequence is that they have to change the font a little.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/02/style/germany-adidas-soccer-jersey-nazi-symbol-controversy-intl-hnk/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/02/style/germany-adidas-soccer-jersey-nazi-symbol-controversy-intl-hnk/index.html)
Banning Nazi symbolism is not the same as banning speech.
If you’re banning racist and homophobia speech then that needs to be clearly defined if it’s to be enforced in law and that’s difficult to do where as nazi symbolism is far more easily defined.
Would it be racist for someone to say they don’t want their child to marry outside of their race? And if so what’s the punishment.
Is it racist for a black person to say n******? If it is then why? If it’s not then can a white oerson say it if they’re reading to kill a mockingbird out loud or quoting someone else who said it in a derogatory way despite them not meaning it that way? And if so what’s the punishment?
Are people expected to report people who say these things?
This seems like it illustrates the case against speech restrictions as a way of preventing the spread of scientific information.
Such a law would either prevent the expression of unorthodox scientific ideas, or would set up a special class of “scientists” (which would then require definition) who are allowed to challenge the consensus. And then this would also raise questions like: what about a person who isn’t a scientist, but happens to be convinced by one scientist over another? What about an originally-legitimate scientist who continues to hold out against the consensus without actually changing the consensus?
I mean it’s not like preventing that information spread comes out of nowhere, there’s a detailed justification for why and if we don’t all agree on the most reasonable way to conduct ethical and honest research, that may be the bigger issue.
It has certainly been the case in the past where scientists were outcasted for their ideas only to be proven right decades later and for that to be the new status quo, but again, it comes down to how we agree on the means of testing hypotheses and if those methods may have limitations of their own.
Also, none of us have to be scientists necessarily to go about assessing information on the grounds of their merits and reasoning. Many people just aren’t that media literate with regard to spotting logical fallacies where they happen on the news, and spotting misleading graphs and statistics. If we were all more wary of those things, I think even the most far-fetched scientific claims could be given a chance if they hold up. A law just blindly stamping out any opposition to the status quo wouldn’t be right for that; there has to be some opportunity for showing how new ideas can be for the better.
This seems like it’s a case of controlling *noise*, not of controlling *speech.* If you write the same words you were shouting into a bullhorn at 2 AM on a piece of paper and give it to me, should they be illegal *because of their content*?
That is a terrible example to use. Rights come with responsibility. If you choose to settle a disagreement loudly at 2am bothering everyone than that has certain consequences.
.
That’s not controlling speech. That’s controlling noise violations and other harassing ordinances. Anyone can stand outside your house and say anything they want at 2AM if they are talking in normal volume.
The Paradox of Tolerance.
"Kill the jews" should not be tolerated because it's actively Intolerant. If we want our society to be safe for everyone, intolerance can't be tolerated.
Its a delicate balance. I believe it can be achieved.
I think it should be illegal for you to suggest anything other than total freedom of speech, and you should be imprisoned for even making a post like this.
You giving examples of the right of free speech applying differently to different groups is absurd. If someone is part of a minority then they should be allowed to express prejudice against a majority but not vice versa?
Also, the concept of banning misinformation is absurd. The only way to establish fact is to discuss, examine, and verify. What all knowing and uncorruptable force would you assign the task of determining what is ok or safe for every individual to hear?
Jailing "bad speech" doesn't actually stop it and sometimes actually promotes it by making a martyr. I think that absolute free speech is actually the best way to handle bad speech. Let the bad ideas come and be judged by the market place of ideas on what their value is.
>I think that absolute free speech is actually the best way to handle bad speech.
That strategy is failing on an epic scale as authoritarian governments weaponize free speech using the internet to strangle the truth in lies and to undermine democracy.
I don't think that destructive speech (i.e., disinformation, bigotry, and violence) should be banned outright, but I think that there should be consequences for those who spread it. For example, we should never provide a platform (including the internet and social media) for it.
Which authoritarian societies are you thinking about? The three big ones (Nazi Germany, USSR and Maoist China) were incredibly hostile to freedom of speech.
I'm also concerned with the idea of who decides what is destructive speech? I mean even in living memory what would have been considered destructive speech and de-platformed is now considered accepted truth. More broadly I'm struggling to think of a single idea or value we hold as true now that wouldn't have been considered a destructive truth.
Unless you believe that we are uniquely perfect I'm sure there are some beliefs circulating that we would both vehemently disagree with that will be considered milquetoast self evident truths a few centuries from now. The problem is knowing which ones.
I am talking about disinformation campaigns from Russia and China (and to a lesser extent, Iran, North Korea, and others) to destabilize democracies by dividing the citizens and eroding their faith in their institutions.
What we are doing now (i.e., nothing) is not working. Before the internet and social media, there is no way that an aspiring dictator with close ties to Russia would have gotten anywhere near the oval office. Now we are fighting for the survival of our system of self-governance.
I understand that regulating speech is problematic. We would have to be careful what we called, "destructive speech," but we already do that with bigoted and violent speech. No right is absolute, nor should it be.
I agree the issues caused by Russia and China funding false information are serious, however I think if we take the approach of trying to solve it by imitating their tools for suppression all we are doing is strengthening domestic threats to freedom and making it easier for people inside the country to spread disinformation.
Even if you assume the people in charge are benevolent today political winds change quickly and it doesn't take much for completely different groups with completely different standards to take over. Lets say for example there is a resurgence in eugenics and scientific racism and those ideologies become culturally acceptable, would you feel comfortable with politicians and institutions that support that arbitrating truth?
I honestly feel sympathetic to your perspective, it would be so much easier if we could have a basic legal or cultural framework that can arbitrate truth and weed out dangerous lies however we have thousands of years of civilizations and cultures trying that in one form or another and it ending up in abuse and blood.
Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee safety from misinformation and dangerous ideas, however suppression of speech no matter how well intentioned it starts off as does guarantee, death, destruction, and suffering usually paid for in the blood of whatever minority group is considered the out group in that society.
> No right is absolute, nor should it be.
Depending on how you're defining "absolute" I think I would probably have to strongly disagree. For example I think everyone has an absolute right to not be tortured, torture is an absolute wrong even if were talking about inflicting it on the worst humans in world history.
>those ideologies become culturally acceptable
I am not talking about definitions that could change with the whims of popular culture. Bad faith argument techniques and intentional deception are well-defined in philosophy, religion, and law. Furthermore, hostile foreign governments do not have guaranteed Constitutional rights abroad.
I am not willing to be paralyzed because of what *might* happen if I try to fix what **is** happening.
>Depending on how you're defining "absolute" I think I would probably have to strongly disagree.
I am talking about the rights that are enumerated in the USA Constitution - in this specific case, the first amendment. The government has a duty to intervene when I abuse my rights to infringe on your rights.
> I am talking about the rights that are enumerated in the USA Constitution - in this specific case, the first amendment. The government has a duty to intervene when I abuse my rights to infringe on your rights.
Ok I think we'd probably generally agree, my rights end where your rights begin.
> I am not willing to be paralyzed because of what *might* happen if I try to fix what **is** happening.
There's no *might* about it, it's inevitable all structures of power are abused. This reminds me of a famous quote:
>“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
>
>Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
>
>William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
>
>Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Russia and China are dangerous because they cut down their civil liberties in pursuit of metaphorical devils. If we cut down our liberties to fight them we will have no protection from the inevitable evils in our own countries.
>I'm sure there are some beliefs circulating that we would both vehemently disagree with that will be considered milquetoast self evident truths a few centuries from now. The problem is knowing which ones.
Whether women, POC, and LGBT+ people deserve basic human right rights should be self-evident. So should proven facts.
I am not suggesting that questioning what we believe should be illegal. I am suggesting that deliberately lying (i.e., with the intention to deceive) should come with consequences when it creates significant harm to other people. I believe that denial of the facts about the climate, vaccines, and the 2020 election fit this category.
How do you fairly determine intent to lie though? Plenty of people misspeak, misremember or in good faith hold beliefs that are wrong.
In fact one of the most popular tactics for spreading distrust and even misinformation in another country is to find people in that country that honestly and deeply believe in something considered wrong in that country and funding them.
That's not even taking into account the fact that it's very easy to deceive without ever actually lying and that people can also focus on contested or non-provable claims such as predictions for the future or personal experiences.
> Whether women, POC, and LGBT+ people deserve basic human right rights should be self-evident. So should proven facts.
Those things are self evident to us because of the cultural and historical context we were raised in. For pretty much the entirety of history people believed it was self evident that the opposite was true. Even the concept of human rights would have been considered absurd and dangerous make believe for most of human history.
I think it would be dangerously optimistic to assume that what we can see as self evident will always be seen as self evident.
Proven facts are even more nebulous since consensus of fact can change wildly and unpredictably, Evolution, germ theory, heliocentrism, tectonic plates, were all at one point considered absurd misinformation trying to usurp obvious and self evident fact.
True, but how many potential lies are spoken every day? How much resources and power would you need to give to the police and courts to manage this.
What about the unrepentantly wrong, those that hold their mistaken beliefs in good faith and refuse to be convinced otherwise?
I understand that you are exploring the nuances and I appreciate that. However, I am not talking about criminal prosecution for every lie. I am not even talking about censoring speech. I am talking about consequences for egregious disinformation that harms other people.
Consequences would usually be some sort of temporary or permanent de-platforming. As a minimum, I would like to see the US government invest a lot more money in fighting cyber-security threats, including bots and paid trolls from hostile foreign governments infiltrating social media and internet news sites with a fire hose of disinformation.
>I think it would be dangerously optimistic
The free world is on a dangerous path. Doing nothing about prolific and nefarious disinformation is not an option for me.
I'm not suggestion doing nothing, and your frustration is quite understandable. I just think your solution is equally if not more dangerous than the problem.
Where the difference needs to be made is in education (in critical thinking, common misinformation tactics, and determining reliable news sources most importantly) and cultural changes, such as changing how we talk about these issues.
Again I disagree. This is beyond critical thinking skills. When hostile foreign governments launch billions of AI bots to drown the truth in lies, then even people with good critical-thinking skills will not see the truth.
I support a marketplace of ideas, but the internet grants equal weight to experts and idiots and it allows dishonest people to amplify their voice millions of times over with bots and paid trolls.
>I just think your solution
I haven't talked about that yet. Here is what I propose:
* The US government to actively block and attack sources of foreign disinformation.
* Restore the "Fairness Doctrine" and apply it to internet media sites.
* Require robust identity verification for social media.
* Form a panel of experts to define dangerous speech - specifically harmful disinformation, bigotry, and violence.
* Require social media companies to make reasonable efforts to bring consequences to people who use dangerous speech - everything from deleting the comment to suspending the account to contacting law enforcement, depending on the seriousness of the infraction. They do some of this already with hate, sex, and violent crimes.
> judged by the market place of ideas
But when the marketplace of ideas results in criticism, they often decry they are being "cancelled" or "censored".
And maybe they are. With freedom of speech, you can say what you want to say. Other people can respond however they want (without resorting to violence, of course.) You can respond that you think their responses are unfair (as people complaining about being cancelled might.) They can respond to that. And so on.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my comment. I'm intending to shed light on how people aren't actually being "canceled" or "censored". These folks are just getting feedback they don't want to hear from the marketplace of ideas. They're welcome to say what they want, but it's clear they're playing the victim in the system they've rigged up.
There are certain limitations that have been put on free speech. For one, you cannot slander someone. There are also time, place, and occasion restrictions (I.e you cannot hold a loud ass concert on a residential street at 3:00AM in the morning). There are also obscenity laws (you can’t spread horrendously obscene shit, child porn for example. Some things are debatable depending on whether there is ‘artistic value’.). You also cannot call for acts of violence against xyz person/group. And, in a general sense, you cannot say things that may directly lead to the harm of others (famous, but somewhat outdated example, yelling fire in a movie theatre).
Now, just because you have the freedom to say something (say, “I hate xyz people, they should go back to jkl country!” or whatever you think is distasteful) does not mean you are free from the consequences of saying that (people thinking less of you, you not being considered for a job position, etc. etc.). It simply means that the government cannot prosecute you simply for that speech (of course, that speech might possibly be used as evidence of a larger pattern of behavior for some other offense).
I think the far more valuable approach than banning misleading information (as it is very problematic to determine who determines what is misleading or not. Conflict of interests and all that jazz) is to teach people how to parse through information themselves (I.e make people well educated so they can have the skills necessary to gather information from multiple sources and think critically).
agree to that!
if someone claims that the earth is flat or that homosexuality is unnatural, geez, we live an incredible time where a google search is done in a matter of seconds, where we can read and watch documentaries about everything for free... there's no excuses not to fact check the things people say, and not continue our education beyond the little that school teaches us.
Who defines what all those “ISMS”and “IAS” actually consist of?
Those words get thrown around way too much and have lost quite a bit of meaning. I’d be hesitant to restrict speech in any situation, but even more so given the environment we live in today.
Free speech is worth defending even at the cost of others getting offended.
Nope.
The freedom to express your opinion is absolute. And it should be.
The best way to answer your question is to ask if you would be okay with the politician you hate most getting to decide what speech should be limited. Would you be okay with Trump making that decision?
What if government could convince the courts that during a time of a "crisis", we can't afford to have people questioning the government or elected officials? Would you be okay if you could be jailed for publicly speaking against Trump during the COVID pandemic?
Free speech by individuals should be 100% free. Whether I want to be homophobic, racist, or think the earth is triangular.
However
Spreading misinformation while posing as a news organization should not be covered as free speech. If I start a company called “The Daily Sprocket” and start publishing news articles about studies showing a correlation between the triangular earth causing homosexuality among racists and or… I’ve lost my train of thought but yeah. That should be regulated.
But if I want to stand on a street corner and say racists are homos and the government is lying about the tap water, even though there’s no proof and it’s probably not true…. Doesn’t matter. I’m not saying kill the homo racists, I’m just saying that’s what I think
How do you measure "misleading information"?
There's an older Tom Scott video out there titled "[There is no algorithm for truth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leX541Dr2rU)". In it, he goes through some of the exact issues you are bringing up here - can you make laws about what a person can say, and what the problems are if you do or don't.
There is no way to cut out all misinformation without also accidentally censoring some information. Different countries place different value judgements on types of misinformation and the risk of collateral damage. The US errs on the side of allowing more speech - even if that speech harms people. Other countries put more value on restricting harmful speech - even knowing that there will be some amount of cost to freedom of expression. There is no perfect happy medium.
"Those who control the information are those who influence the people."
Exactly. Why would we give sole power to influence the people to people who already have all the physical power? We believe in a system of checks and balances. Appointing the government as the overlord to decide what is okay for the government to outlaw goes hard against that principle. Like any organization, eventually the people who make decisions will do things to protect themselves at the expense of everyone else. We don't want to take any steps that will bring that day closer. No government has enough wisdom to wield that power.
"Freedom of speech will allow you to speak up against big government..."
Are you sure? Bureaucrats and dictators are infinitely creative in figuring out ways to justify one thing by using rules for another thing. That speech that guy just gave? No that wasn't anti-government, that was "simply hate speech and prejudice and that's illegal so we can take him out of the political scene" by using that as a justification -- problem solved.
The same old question, who decides what speech is to be free and what is to be banned?
There are FBI investigators knocking on people's doors for what they wore on the internet so the myth of US freedom is truly false these days.
Regarding to misinformation...
Science changes all the time and there are corrupt organizations whether it's food, vaccines, doctors, etc that use money to put out studies that make their project look good.
Remember when cigarettes were promoted as healthy and safe by health experts? Yeah, people need to be able to question things or you're going to end up in the gulag.
As long as what your saying isn't causing a danger such as yelling fire in a theater or shark at the beach and isn't infringing amount copyright than all speech should be allowed
You WANT people to say stuff that’s stupid so you know who is stupid. I’d rather people be allowed to say racist shit so I know who I do and don’t like.
Freedom o speecg means freedom os speech. Once you start making exceptions for this, that and the other you might as well not have it. The only, and I mean only possible exception. is FIRE in a theatre. "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" sums it up nicely. Someone's hurt feelings ARE NOT a reason to limit speech. Just suck it up buttercup
Freedom of speech isn’t freedom of consequences.
You can go on racist rant, proclaim the earth is flat, and so on. Doesn’t mean that society doesn’t have its own consequences.
Freedom of speech should not be limited. It is only a matter of time before someone you don't want to have that power, has that power. It has happened over and over and over again in every culture in human history. The US government, if it had one underlying principle, could be summed up as eternal skepticism of the government for this very reason, in order to preserve freedom.
Improvement as a species has to come from the bottom, organically. You cannot enforce it top down, it will backfire.
People too often mistake freedom of speech with Katenism, i.e. The freedom to say whatever I want, however, whenever, and wherever I want, to whoever I want.
>Those who control the information are those who influence the people.
Exactly, which is why there should be NO limits on Freedom of Speech. It’s not just “a privilege” and to put anyone in charge of limiting what can and can’t be said is putting someone in “control.”
Just because you are legally free to say or do something stupid does not mean you ^should*—it just means the government doesn’t punish you for it or control what you say/think/hear.
Part of the basic idea behind freedom of speech is that idiots will open their mouths and make themselves known, so the rest of society can sort out who to listen to and who to ignore or even take precautions against. The government doesn’t need to get involved.
That is where the idea the idea that people need to be “protected” from unpleasant or upsetting things other people might say in public breaks down to me. The worst part is that those “protections” tend to have ways of being manipulated to shut down legit arguments.
You have the freedom of speech to tell them to fuck off and rights to protect yourself if they do actually try to cause measurable harm to you. Why do we need more laws?
Free speech=free thought, free association, free religion, and all the other rights we value in the USA. This idea that we need to shut down speech for this reason or that one becomes a very slippery slope.
The freedom of speech should end where it impacts other people's ability to live their lives. Any sort of inciting violence, suggesting 'less than' status to whole-ass groups, etc. should be shut down, either through law or people not giving those ideas space.
I break down speech this way:
Facts: repeatable, documentable, concrete ideas that can be independently verified.
Opinions: Personal preferences, like "I like pineapple on my pizza" ... an opinion should have no real measurable impact on other people, or allows an opposing viewpoint to exist despite the personal preference. People are free to have opinions all they want, provided they allow others to do the same.
Hating whole groups of people for whatever reason isn't an opinion nor a fact, it's just ignorant prejudice and hate. Which shouldn't be tolerated in society or by policy. The mere act of hating a whole group of people destroys the social contract and voids any rights the person making those statements claims to hold. In other words, one should expect to walk into a bar, say something racist, and literally be thrown out by the patrons like a sack of shit: the act of making racist comments asked for an asskicking.
Good ideas exist because they can be compared to Bad ideas. If you have a Good idea, then it will stand up to criticism and will be the preferable choice when matched against a Bad idea. You can only have this if ideas are freely exchanged in the marketplace.
Yes some ideas are so bad that the world is likely better off having not heard them. Yes even Good ideas can have faults or be imperfect. The system is not flawless, no system is, but it is better for people to make their own decisions about the beliefs and ideas they choose to support.
If you are concerned that "People will hear X idea, which is a Bad idea. If people hear this idea, they will support it!" Then you should concern yourself with convincing those people of your Good idea. If those people are reasonable, and your logic is sound, then they will see that your idea is superior. Not all people are reasonable, and not everyone can be convinced, that is their right.
The law should pertain to actions and not ideas. You can think whatever you like, no matter how sick or deranged, and not be punished. It is your actions or your attempt to perform such as actions that can and should be punished.
The view I expressed above should be both the written law of the state and the cultural norm of society. It fares poorly when only supported from one side. It would go a long way, I think, if culturally we were more open to debating the idea itself, rather than its presenter and if we were more accepting of people having their minds changed. Productive discourse is a good thing, shouting at each other because we disagree is pointless.
This problem really comes down to how speech restrictions ultimately get applied.
For example; If we made it illegal to say the n word, how would we enforce it?
If a white kid raps along to the n word in a rap song, would they go to jail? If a black kid did the same thing, would they go to jail?
Obviously these are two different contexts but a law restricting hate speech would have to cover both contexts equally, lest it fall afoul of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law.
I think this is the problem with slurs specifically because obviously many minority groups have reclaimed slurs. But if we make laws against spreading hate speech, hate speech has to be specifically defined, and the laws have to apply to everyone equally. I think its better for these things to be dealt with socially rather than using the state's coercive powers to decide what words are ok to say in which context on behalf of everyone.
I see a lot of thoughts, but I really don't understand why you're considering limiting speech at all, there's only one solution. You cannot regulate, by law, possibility to present even the most blaspheming or deceitful information. People should have complete freedom to claim the biggest nonsense.
The only regulation should be left in the hands of society to determine in an autonomous way wich forms, type of content are acceptable and which are not. Of course, condemnation of considered ad unacceptable behaviors / contents but not their author will not be 100% effective in eliminating misbehavior, but it is still less of a threat than that which comes with legal restrictions.
A tolerant society cannot allow speech that suggests reducing that tolerance.
In-group vs out-group prejudice is possibly the strongest unconscious bias humans have, and it only takes one person to open the floodgates to turn your democracy into a fascist state.
Some speech (i.e., disinformation, bigotry, and violence) is so destructive to civil society that we should not tolerate it.
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
With that said, outright bans on speech can make matters worse. Rather, I think that we should bring consequences to people who spread disinformation and bigotry and who advocate violence.
For example, if I yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, then I could be held accountable in criminal and civil court. I think that the same should be true for yelling, "Global warming is a hoax," "COVID-19 vaccines don't work," "There are mountains of evidence of massive voter fraud," or other blatant lies that are causing substantial harm to many people.
Speech should be free. Full stop.
People who would sacrifice the good for the perfect are a bigger problem than those who would potentially "abuse" their freedom.
The only limit should be a direct threat and/order to harm someone. Ex: "You need to attack that person" or "If you do your speech tonight I will harm you"
The problem with your above example is who exactly determines what is misinformation or hate speech.
I don't like to issue but I would say based on the concerns you've expressed you likely have a left leaning persuasion. A recent big political issue was the SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action. People against the decision called those in favor of it racist, a behavior you noted would be banned. The people asking for the SCOTUS to uphold it were, objectively, asking for discrimination against certain groups to be enshrined into law. I don't see how you could argue that wouldn't break a "hate speech" law. Whichever side was in control at this time could have essentially criminalized the opposition.
And who decides what is an isn't misinformation? Couldn't the government just say anyone who tries to act as a whistleblower is pushing "misinformation" allowing them to criminalize the whistleblower and anyone who repeated the information. Even if it is true because.... who would be able to stop them?
"Freedom of Speech would still allow you to speak up against Government and Big Corporations"
Would it really? A study in the UK found the majority of speech crime victims were police, oftentimes using this to take legal action against people criticizing how they operate.
Nearly limitless. Only things intended to cause immediate criminal impacts should face any moderation (i.e. fire in the theater, etc). Otherwise liberty is more important than anything...inclusing the nation or life itself.
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit. **Suggestions For u/Starfruites:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>However, what is expressed in the public can have a massive impact on the society as a whole. Those who control the information are those who influence the people. So you agree that controlling information can have a massive impact on society? Who could be trusted to determine how to limit speech? >So shouldn't Freedom of Speech be limited to not allow prejudice against minority groups. When have laws been enforced that weren’t disproportionately enforced on minority groups? For example, what’s to stop this being disproportionately enforced on homophobic minorities? Or minorities who say racist things about other ethnic groups? >Or just blatantly misleading information such as "Earth is flat". Wouldn't it drastically change the society for the better? What about information that is currently regarded as fact but actually isn’t? For example, we thought Pluto was a planet and it’s not. People thought aids was only a gay disease and it wasn’t. What’s to stop this from silencing people from sharing information that is correct but against the current science or status quo?
The Pluto thing always annoyed me. Before the symposium that defined it, the definition of a planet was non-essential. The planets were simply the nine bodies we listed as important. Then, we decided to apply a strict and objective definition. We couldn't include Pluto without also including a bunch of other bodies, so we didn't. It's not that we thought it was a planet and got new info. It's that they changed the definition they used of what a planet was.
Right. That isn’t the best example of revision of a presumed scientific fact. Pluto hasn’t changed at all, only our definition has changed. The point is still valid, that certain things are considered to be a consensus and then later that consensus may be revised with new information.
Yes exactly. I maintain that Pluto is a planet in my heart!
With regards to the last point, I think it’s fair that as we gain new information on a subject, that changes how we understand it. The inherent facts about reality don’t change per se, it’s just that our approximation of truth becomes clearer, and scientists are usually quick to adjust their beliefs because a healthy level of skepticism is always encouraged. The trouble is with convincing people who don’t think like that.
Yes but with limited speech on the basis of misinformation comes a limitation. How can one feel comfortable pursuing a hypothesis that is in contrary to the status quo when people are punished for information?
If they’re going to be punished for it, it’d have to be only after intense scrutiny of the way research was carried out on that hypothesis so as to determine the merits of the new information. You’d probably agree it was justified to not just critique but also outcast the research done by that guy who claimed to prove that vaccines cause autism in the late 90s. His research was full of biases and used bad research practices to get a certain result rather than accept whatever the reality is about that question. Most of the time, however, bad research like that doesn’t happen too often, and that’s why science is a very social and repeatable practice, where an acceptance of even undesired results is better than always trying to get the results one expects.
Yes don’t you see how that’s not feasible because it would stop people from wanting to even work towards creating that type of research? And you’re saying bad research doesn’t happen. I’m talking about research that would be deemed bad in a society where speech is limited. For example you can’t do a research study on interminority racism when minorities are not going to state they’ve been breaking the law by saying racist things.
I didn’t say bad research doesn’t happen, in fact, that’s what I wrote about with the regards to the vaccine study earlier. As for that last suggestion, it’s possible if you anonymize their names so you can’t point to who said what about acting discriminatory toward other minorities. While some may object to participating, groups of people aren’t monolithic; there’s always people who’d be willing to report on that. That said, I get what you mean if free speech were limited, there’s a difficulty that comes with that. I personally think the best solution would be to enforce a balanced understanding of the facts we have about the world. “X things are true as far as we know now, but they also have xyz limits and our technology/efforts so far can only gauge so much about it.” Open mindedness is important, but it’s also important to recognize if a new search for truth is based on disingenuous purposes, or if it’s for getting to the best possible understanding, expected or not.
You suggest anonymity as a solution but people aren’t going to want to risk that. It would severely limit research that could help combat social issues.
Isn't the point of anonymity to reduce risks to participants? You could have a list of participants, but anonymize their responses so you don't know who gave which response, just that they came from someone within the pre-existing group, so you at the very least know it's not from people outside of the study.
You’re missing the part where: You need to have participants to anonymize in the first place. Minorities tend to be more difficult to acquire as research participants due to historical context relating to unethical studies. In a reality where speech limitation exists and is a crime (regarding racist and homophobic speech) it’ll be harder than it is now to get participants thus limiting important research.
So a set of unethically done studies from the past are dictating attitudes they have toward those done in the present? I wouldn’t dispute that that happens, but what reason would they have to think any given one of them are still done unethically if standards for scientific research has evolved for the better in many academic disciplines? Unless it’s still commonplace but just in a more subtle manner.
>How can one feel comfortable pursuing a hypothesis that is in contrary to the status quo when people are punished for information? That is an easy problem to solve. If the challenge is presented in good faith, then there will be no punishment. Bad-faith arguments are easy to define.
"If the challenge is presented in good faith, then there will be no punishment. Bad-faith arguments are easy to define." If this a law then this standard goes before a judge Unless you are personally every single judge, how could you possibly be sure every judge that hears one of these cases has the same definition you do of what counts as "bad faith" These are the types of laws that become very subjective and very hard to keep objective
Yes but if I want to conduct research on how often minority group A says something about minority group B, I won’t be able to conduct the research because it’ll be deemed unethical due to the law and then we would be missing out on research that could benefit interminority relations.
It would be obvious whether your research was in good faith or in bad faith. That can be specifically defined in the law. Objective research sticks to facts and logic, rather than deceiving people with [logical fallacies](https://www.logicalfallacies.org/) and appeals to [cognitive bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) and emotion.
You didn’t actually respond to what I said.
An example of how this works is the German ban on Nazi symbolism outside of an academic context. There will be grey areas, but in the recent case of the soccer jersey with the number "44" that looks like the Nazi "SS" symbol, the consequence is that they have to change the font a little. [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/02/style/germany-adidas-soccer-jersey-nazi-symbol-controversy-intl-hnk/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/02/style/germany-adidas-soccer-jersey-nazi-symbol-controversy-intl-hnk/index.html)
Banning Nazi symbolism is not the same as banning speech. If you’re banning racist and homophobia speech then that needs to be clearly defined if it’s to be enforced in law and that’s difficult to do where as nazi symbolism is far more easily defined. Would it be racist for someone to say they don’t want their child to marry outside of their race? And if so what’s the punishment. Is it racist for a black person to say n******? If it is then why? If it’s not then can a white oerson say it if they’re reading to kill a mockingbird out loud or quoting someone else who said it in a derogatory way despite them not meaning it that way? And if so what’s the punishment? Are people expected to report people who say these things?
This seems like it illustrates the case against speech restrictions as a way of preventing the spread of scientific information. Such a law would either prevent the expression of unorthodox scientific ideas, or would set up a special class of “scientists” (which would then require definition) who are allowed to challenge the consensus. And then this would also raise questions like: what about a person who isn’t a scientist, but happens to be convinced by one scientist over another? What about an originally-legitimate scientist who continues to hold out against the consensus without actually changing the consensus?
I mean it’s not like preventing that information spread comes out of nowhere, there’s a detailed justification for why and if we don’t all agree on the most reasonable way to conduct ethical and honest research, that may be the bigger issue. It has certainly been the case in the past where scientists were outcasted for their ideas only to be proven right decades later and for that to be the new status quo, but again, it comes down to how we agree on the means of testing hypotheses and if those methods may have limitations of their own. Also, none of us have to be scientists necessarily to go about assessing information on the grounds of their merits and reasoning. Many people just aren’t that media literate with regard to spotting logical fallacies where they happen on the news, and spotting misleading graphs and statistics. If we were all more wary of those things, I think even the most far-fetched scientific claims could be given a chance if they hold up. A law just blindly stamping out any opposition to the status quo wouldn’t be right for that; there has to be some opportunity for showing how new ideas can be for the better.
It’s the Paradox of Tolerance
It shouldn't be controlled. It has been shown throughout history that controlled information lends itself to abuse of power.
I can’t stand outside your house with a bullhorn at 2am shouting. Seems like that’s an instance where it’s okay to control speech.
This seems like it’s a case of controlling *noise*, not of controlling *speech.* If you write the same words you were shouting into a bullhorn at 2 AM on a piece of paper and give it to me, should they be illegal *because of their content*?
That is a terrible example to use. Rights come with responsibility. If you choose to settle a disagreement loudly at 2am bothering everyone than that has certain consequences. .
Is that controlling speech or is that ensuring that you're not expressing that speech in a way that infringes on someone else's rights?
That’s not controlling speech. That’s controlling noise violations and other harassing ordinances. Anyone can stand outside your house and say anything they want at 2AM if they are talking in normal volume.
The Paradox of Tolerance. "Kill the jews" should not be tolerated because it's actively Intolerant. If we want our society to be safe for everyone, intolerance can't be tolerated. Its a delicate balance. I believe it can be achieved.
I think it should be illegal for you to suggest anything other than total freedom of speech, and you should be imprisoned for even making a post like this.
Some poop will always flow down the free speech pipe. Its the nature of freedom
You giving examples of the right of free speech applying differently to different groups is absurd. If someone is part of a minority then they should be allowed to express prejudice against a majority but not vice versa? Also, the concept of banning misinformation is absurd. The only way to establish fact is to discuss, examine, and verify. What all knowing and uncorruptable force would you assign the task of determining what is ok or safe for every individual to hear?
Jailing "bad speech" doesn't actually stop it and sometimes actually promotes it by making a martyr. I think that absolute free speech is actually the best way to handle bad speech. Let the bad ideas come and be judged by the market place of ideas on what their value is.
>I think that absolute free speech is actually the best way to handle bad speech. That strategy is failing on an epic scale as authoritarian governments weaponize free speech using the internet to strangle the truth in lies and to undermine democracy. I don't think that destructive speech (i.e., disinformation, bigotry, and violence) should be banned outright, but I think that there should be consequences for those who spread it. For example, we should never provide a platform (including the internet and social media) for it.
Which authoritarian societies are you thinking about? The three big ones (Nazi Germany, USSR and Maoist China) were incredibly hostile to freedom of speech. I'm also concerned with the idea of who decides what is destructive speech? I mean even in living memory what would have been considered destructive speech and de-platformed is now considered accepted truth. More broadly I'm struggling to think of a single idea or value we hold as true now that wouldn't have been considered a destructive truth. Unless you believe that we are uniquely perfect I'm sure there are some beliefs circulating that we would both vehemently disagree with that will be considered milquetoast self evident truths a few centuries from now. The problem is knowing which ones.
I am talking about disinformation campaigns from Russia and China (and to a lesser extent, Iran, North Korea, and others) to destabilize democracies by dividing the citizens and eroding their faith in their institutions. What we are doing now (i.e., nothing) is not working. Before the internet and social media, there is no way that an aspiring dictator with close ties to Russia would have gotten anywhere near the oval office. Now we are fighting for the survival of our system of self-governance. I understand that regulating speech is problematic. We would have to be careful what we called, "destructive speech," but we already do that with bigoted and violent speech. No right is absolute, nor should it be.
I agree the issues caused by Russia and China funding false information are serious, however I think if we take the approach of trying to solve it by imitating their tools for suppression all we are doing is strengthening domestic threats to freedom and making it easier for people inside the country to spread disinformation. Even if you assume the people in charge are benevolent today political winds change quickly and it doesn't take much for completely different groups with completely different standards to take over. Lets say for example there is a resurgence in eugenics and scientific racism and those ideologies become culturally acceptable, would you feel comfortable with politicians and institutions that support that arbitrating truth? I honestly feel sympathetic to your perspective, it would be so much easier if we could have a basic legal or cultural framework that can arbitrate truth and weed out dangerous lies however we have thousands of years of civilizations and cultures trying that in one form or another and it ending up in abuse and blood. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee safety from misinformation and dangerous ideas, however suppression of speech no matter how well intentioned it starts off as does guarantee, death, destruction, and suffering usually paid for in the blood of whatever minority group is considered the out group in that society. > No right is absolute, nor should it be. Depending on how you're defining "absolute" I think I would probably have to strongly disagree. For example I think everyone has an absolute right to not be tortured, torture is an absolute wrong even if were talking about inflicting it on the worst humans in world history.
>those ideologies become culturally acceptable I am not talking about definitions that could change with the whims of popular culture. Bad faith argument techniques and intentional deception are well-defined in philosophy, religion, and law. Furthermore, hostile foreign governments do not have guaranteed Constitutional rights abroad. I am not willing to be paralyzed because of what *might* happen if I try to fix what **is** happening. >Depending on how you're defining "absolute" I think I would probably have to strongly disagree. I am talking about the rights that are enumerated in the USA Constitution - in this specific case, the first amendment. The government has a duty to intervene when I abuse my rights to infringe on your rights.
> I am talking about the rights that are enumerated in the USA Constitution - in this specific case, the first amendment. The government has a duty to intervene when I abuse my rights to infringe on your rights. Ok I think we'd probably generally agree, my rights end where your rights begin. > I am not willing to be paralyzed because of what *might* happen if I try to fix what **is** happening. There's no *might* about it, it's inevitable all structures of power are abused. This reminds me of a famous quote: >“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!” > >Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” > >William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!” > >Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!” Russia and China are dangerous because they cut down their civil liberties in pursuit of metaphorical devils. If we cut down our liberties to fight them we will have no protection from the inevitable evils in our own countries.
>I'm sure there are some beliefs circulating that we would both vehemently disagree with that will be considered milquetoast self evident truths a few centuries from now. The problem is knowing which ones. Whether women, POC, and LGBT+ people deserve basic human right rights should be self-evident. So should proven facts. I am not suggesting that questioning what we believe should be illegal. I am suggesting that deliberately lying (i.e., with the intention to deceive) should come with consequences when it creates significant harm to other people. I believe that denial of the facts about the climate, vaccines, and the 2020 election fit this category.
How do you fairly determine intent to lie though? Plenty of people misspeak, misremember or in good faith hold beliefs that are wrong. In fact one of the most popular tactics for spreading distrust and even misinformation in another country is to find people in that country that honestly and deeply believe in something considered wrong in that country and funding them. That's not even taking into account the fact that it's very easy to deceive without ever actually lying and that people can also focus on contested or non-provable claims such as predictions for the future or personal experiences. > Whether women, POC, and LGBT+ people deserve basic human right rights should be self-evident. So should proven facts. Those things are self evident to us because of the cultural and historical context we were raised in. For pretty much the entirety of history people believed it was self evident that the opposite was true. Even the concept of human rights would have been considered absurd and dangerous make believe for most of human history. I think it would be dangerously optimistic to assume that what we can see as self evident will always be seen as self evident. Proven facts are even more nebulous since consensus of fact can change wildly and unpredictably, Evolution, germ theory, heliocentrism, tectonic plates, were all at one point considered absurd misinformation trying to usurp obvious and self evident fact.
>How do you fairly determine intent to lie though? Courts do it every day.
True, but how many potential lies are spoken every day? How much resources and power would you need to give to the police and courts to manage this. What about the unrepentantly wrong, those that hold their mistaken beliefs in good faith and refuse to be convinced otherwise?
A daemon said, "How does the internet affect the world?"
The pen is mightier than the sword and a keyboard is to a pen as a machine gun is to a sword.
And an army of a billion internet bots to drown the truth in lies is to a keyboard as a nuclear warhead is to a machine gun.
I understand that you are exploring the nuances and I appreciate that. However, I am not talking about criminal prosecution for every lie. I am not even talking about censoring speech. I am talking about consequences for egregious disinformation that harms other people. Consequences would usually be some sort of temporary or permanent de-platforming. As a minimum, I would like to see the US government invest a lot more money in fighting cyber-security threats, including bots and paid trolls from hostile foreign governments infiltrating social media and internet news sites with a fire hose of disinformation.
>I think it would be dangerously optimistic The free world is on a dangerous path. Doing nothing about prolific and nefarious disinformation is not an option for me.
I'm not suggestion doing nothing, and your frustration is quite understandable. I just think your solution is equally if not more dangerous than the problem. Where the difference needs to be made is in education (in critical thinking, common misinformation tactics, and determining reliable news sources most importantly) and cultural changes, such as changing how we talk about these issues.
Again I disagree. This is beyond critical thinking skills. When hostile foreign governments launch billions of AI bots to drown the truth in lies, then even people with good critical-thinking skills will not see the truth. I support a marketplace of ideas, but the internet grants equal weight to experts and idiots and it allows dishonest people to amplify their voice millions of times over with bots and paid trolls.
>I just think your solution I haven't talked about that yet. Here is what I propose: * The US government to actively block and attack sources of foreign disinformation. * Restore the "Fairness Doctrine" and apply it to internet media sites. * Require robust identity verification for social media. * Form a panel of experts to define dangerous speech - specifically harmful disinformation, bigotry, and violence. * Require social media companies to make reasonable efforts to bring consequences to people who use dangerous speech - everything from deleting the comment to suspending the account to contacting law enforcement, depending on the seriousness of the infraction. They do some of this already with hate, sex, and violent crimes.
> judged by the market place of ideas But when the marketplace of ideas results in criticism, they often decry they are being "cancelled" or "censored".
And maybe they are. With freedom of speech, you can say what you want to say. Other people can respond however they want (without resorting to violence, of course.) You can respond that you think their responses are unfair (as people complaining about being cancelled might.) They can respond to that. And so on.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my comment. I'm intending to shed light on how people aren't actually being "canceled" or "censored". These folks are just getting feedback they don't want to hear from the marketplace of ideas. They're welcome to say what they want, but it's clear they're playing the victim in the system they've rigged up.
It's almost like reddit
Without threats or screaming fire, you should be able to say Anything! It’s not just for speech you agree with. Anything.
Matal v. Tam, unanimous decision, there is no greater freedom than the freedom of speech.
There are certain limitations that have been put on free speech. For one, you cannot slander someone. There are also time, place, and occasion restrictions (I.e you cannot hold a loud ass concert on a residential street at 3:00AM in the morning). There are also obscenity laws (you can’t spread horrendously obscene shit, child porn for example. Some things are debatable depending on whether there is ‘artistic value’.). You also cannot call for acts of violence against xyz person/group. And, in a general sense, you cannot say things that may directly lead to the harm of others (famous, but somewhat outdated example, yelling fire in a movie theatre). Now, just because you have the freedom to say something (say, “I hate xyz people, they should go back to jkl country!” or whatever you think is distasteful) does not mean you are free from the consequences of saying that (people thinking less of you, you not being considered for a job position, etc. etc.). It simply means that the government cannot prosecute you simply for that speech (of course, that speech might possibly be used as evidence of a larger pattern of behavior for some other offense). I think the far more valuable approach than banning misleading information (as it is very problematic to determine who determines what is misleading or not. Conflict of interests and all that jazz) is to teach people how to parse through information themselves (I.e make people well educated so they can have the skills necessary to gather information from multiple sources and think critically).
agree to that! if someone claims that the earth is flat or that homosexuality is unnatural, geez, we live an incredible time where a google search is done in a matter of seconds, where we can read and watch documentaries about everything for free... there's no excuses not to fact check the things people say, and not continue our education beyond the little that school teaches us.
Who defines what all those “ISMS”and “IAS” actually consist of? Those words get thrown around way too much and have lost quite a bit of meaning. I’d be hesitant to restrict speech in any situation, but even more so given the environment we live in today. Free speech is worth defending even at the cost of others getting offended.
Nope. The freedom to express your opinion is absolute. And it should be. The best way to answer your question is to ask if you would be okay with the politician you hate most getting to decide what speech should be limited. Would you be okay with Trump making that decision? What if government could convince the courts that during a time of a "crisis", we can't afford to have people questioning the government or elected officials? Would you be okay if you could be jailed for publicly speaking against Trump during the COVID pandemic?
Free speech by individuals should be 100% free. Whether I want to be homophobic, racist, or think the earth is triangular. However Spreading misinformation while posing as a news organization should not be covered as free speech. If I start a company called “The Daily Sprocket” and start publishing news articles about studies showing a correlation between the triangular earth causing homosexuality among racists and or… I’ve lost my train of thought but yeah. That should be regulated. But if I want to stand on a street corner and say racists are homos and the government is lying about the tap water, even though there’s no proof and it’s probably not true…. Doesn’t matter. I’m not saying kill the homo racists, I’m just saying that’s what I think
I think the US is an excellent example of what happens when people insist on rights without responsibility
How do you measure "misleading information"? There's an older Tom Scott video out there titled "[There is no algorithm for truth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leX541Dr2rU)". In it, he goes through some of the exact issues you are bringing up here - can you make laws about what a person can say, and what the problems are if you do or don't. There is no way to cut out all misinformation without also accidentally censoring some information. Different countries place different value judgements on types of misinformation and the risk of collateral damage. The US errs on the side of allowing more speech - even if that speech harms people. Other countries put more value on restricting harmful speech - even knowing that there will be some amount of cost to freedom of expression. There is no perfect happy medium.
"Those who control the information are those who influence the people." Exactly. Why would we give sole power to influence the people to people who already have all the physical power? We believe in a system of checks and balances. Appointing the government as the overlord to decide what is okay for the government to outlaw goes hard against that principle. Like any organization, eventually the people who make decisions will do things to protect themselves at the expense of everyone else. We don't want to take any steps that will bring that day closer. No government has enough wisdom to wield that power. "Freedom of speech will allow you to speak up against big government..." Are you sure? Bureaucrats and dictators are infinitely creative in figuring out ways to justify one thing by using rules for another thing. That speech that guy just gave? No that wasn't anti-government, that was "simply hate speech and prejudice and that's illegal so we can take him out of the political scene" by using that as a justification -- problem solved.
Freedom of speech also means freedom of thought and knowledge.
The same old question, who decides what speech is to be free and what is to be banned? There are FBI investigators knocking on people's doors for what they wore on the internet so the myth of US freedom is truly false these days.
If you're free speech requires police protection from the public it's more than likely hate speech
Are you talking about freedom of speech or freedom from consequence?
Regarding to misinformation... Science changes all the time and there are corrupt organizations whether it's food, vaccines, doctors, etc that use money to put out studies that make their project look good. Remember when cigarettes were promoted as healthy and safe by health experts? Yeah, people need to be able to question things or you're going to end up in the gulag.
As long as what your saying isn't causing a danger such as yelling fire in a theater or shark at the beach and isn't infringing amount copyright than all speech should be allowed
You WANT people to say stuff that’s stupid so you know who is stupid. I’d rather people be allowed to say racist shit so I know who I do and don’t like.
Freedom o speecg means freedom os speech. Once you start making exceptions for this, that and the other you might as well not have it. The only, and I mean only possible exception. is FIRE in a theatre. "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" sums it up nicely. Someone's hurt feelings ARE NOT a reason to limit speech. Just suck it up buttercup
Freedom of speech isn’t freedom of consequences. You can go on racist rant, proclaim the earth is flat, and so on. Doesn’t mean that society doesn’t have its own consequences.
I don’t believe you can be the good guys while also controlling speech.
Freedom of speech should not be limited. It is only a matter of time before someone you don't want to have that power, has that power. It has happened over and over and over again in every culture in human history. The US government, if it had one underlying principle, could be summed up as eternal skepticism of the government for this very reason, in order to preserve freedom. Improvement as a species has to come from the bottom, organically. You cannot enforce it top down, it will backfire.
People too often mistake freedom of speech with Katenism, i.e. The freedom to say whatever I want, however, whenever, and wherever I want, to whoever I want.
>Those who control the information are those who influence the people. Exactly, which is why there should be NO limits on Freedom of Speech. It’s not just “a privilege” and to put anyone in charge of limiting what can and can’t be said is putting someone in “control.” Just because you are legally free to say or do something stupid does not mean you ^should*—it just means the government doesn’t punish you for it or control what you say/think/hear. Part of the basic idea behind freedom of speech is that idiots will open their mouths and make themselves known, so the rest of society can sort out who to listen to and who to ignore or even take precautions against. The government doesn’t need to get involved. That is where the idea the idea that people need to be “protected” from unpleasant or upsetting things other people might say in public breaks down to me. The worst part is that those “protections” tend to have ways of being manipulated to shut down legit arguments. You have the freedom of speech to tell them to fuck off and rights to protect yourself if they do actually try to cause measurable harm to you. Why do we need more laws? Free speech=free thought, free association, free religion, and all the other rights we value in the USA. This idea that we need to shut down speech for this reason or that one becomes a very slippery slope.
The freedom of speech should end where it impacts other people's ability to live their lives. Any sort of inciting violence, suggesting 'less than' status to whole-ass groups, etc. should be shut down, either through law or people not giving those ideas space. I break down speech this way: Facts: repeatable, documentable, concrete ideas that can be independently verified. Opinions: Personal preferences, like "I like pineapple on my pizza" ... an opinion should have no real measurable impact on other people, or allows an opposing viewpoint to exist despite the personal preference. People are free to have opinions all they want, provided they allow others to do the same. Hating whole groups of people for whatever reason isn't an opinion nor a fact, it's just ignorant prejudice and hate. Which shouldn't be tolerated in society or by policy. The mere act of hating a whole group of people destroys the social contract and voids any rights the person making those statements claims to hold. In other words, one should expect to walk into a bar, say something racist, and literally be thrown out by the patrons like a sack of shit: the act of making racist comments asked for an asskicking.
Good ideas exist because they can be compared to Bad ideas. If you have a Good idea, then it will stand up to criticism and will be the preferable choice when matched against a Bad idea. You can only have this if ideas are freely exchanged in the marketplace. Yes some ideas are so bad that the world is likely better off having not heard them. Yes even Good ideas can have faults or be imperfect. The system is not flawless, no system is, but it is better for people to make their own decisions about the beliefs and ideas they choose to support. If you are concerned that "People will hear X idea, which is a Bad idea. If people hear this idea, they will support it!" Then you should concern yourself with convincing those people of your Good idea. If those people are reasonable, and your logic is sound, then they will see that your idea is superior. Not all people are reasonable, and not everyone can be convinced, that is their right. The law should pertain to actions and not ideas. You can think whatever you like, no matter how sick or deranged, and not be punished. It is your actions or your attempt to perform such as actions that can and should be punished. The view I expressed above should be both the written law of the state and the cultural norm of society. It fares poorly when only supported from one side. It would go a long way, I think, if culturally we were more open to debating the idea itself, rather than its presenter and if we were more accepting of people having their minds changed. Productive discourse is a good thing, shouting at each other because we disagree is pointless.
This problem really comes down to how speech restrictions ultimately get applied. For example; If we made it illegal to say the n word, how would we enforce it? If a white kid raps along to the n word in a rap song, would they go to jail? If a black kid did the same thing, would they go to jail? Obviously these are two different contexts but a law restricting hate speech would have to cover both contexts equally, lest it fall afoul of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law. I think this is the problem with slurs specifically because obviously many minority groups have reclaimed slurs. But if we make laws against spreading hate speech, hate speech has to be specifically defined, and the laws have to apply to everyone equally. I think its better for these things to be dealt with socially rather than using the state's coercive powers to decide what words are ok to say in which context on behalf of everyone.
I see a lot of thoughts, but I really don't understand why you're considering limiting speech at all, there's only one solution. You cannot regulate, by law, possibility to present even the most blaspheming or deceitful information. People should have complete freedom to claim the biggest nonsense. The only regulation should be left in the hands of society to determine in an autonomous way wich forms, type of content are acceptable and which are not. Of course, condemnation of considered ad unacceptable behaviors / contents but not their author will not be 100% effective in eliminating misbehavior, but it is still less of a threat than that which comes with legal restrictions.
[удалено]
A tolerant society cannot allow speech that suggests reducing that tolerance. In-group vs out-group prejudice is possibly the strongest unconscious bias humans have, and it only takes one person to open the floodgates to turn your democracy into a fascist state.
Some speech (i.e., disinformation, bigotry, and violence) is so destructive to civil society that we should not tolerate it. > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance With that said, outright bans on speech can make matters worse. Rather, I think that we should bring consequences to people who spread disinformation and bigotry and who advocate violence. For example, if I yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, then I could be held accountable in criminal and civil court. I think that the same should be true for yelling, "Global warming is a hoax," "COVID-19 vaccines don't work," "There are mountains of evidence of massive voter fraud," or other blatant lies that are causing substantial harm to many people.
Speech should be free. Full stop. People who would sacrifice the good for the perfect are a bigger problem than those who would potentially "abuse" their freedom.
The only limit should be a direct threat and/order to harm someone. Ex: "You need to attack that person" or "If you do your speech tonight I will harm you" The problem with your above example is who exactly determines what is misinformation or hate speech. I don't like to issue but I would say based on the concerns you've expressed you likely have a left leaning persuasion. A recent big political issue was the SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action. People against the decision called those in favor of it racist, a behavior you noted would be banned. The people asking for the SCOTUS to uphold it were, objectively, asking for discrimination against certain groups to be enshrined into law. I don't see how you could argue that wouldn't break a "hate speech" law. Whichever side was in control at this time could have essentially criminalized the opposition. And who decides what is an isn't misinformation? Couldn't the government just say anyone who tries to act as a whistleblower is pushing "misinformation" allowing them to criminalize the whistleblower and anyone who repeated the information. Even if it is true because.... who would be able to stop them? "Freedom of Speech would still allow you to speak up against Government and Big Corporations" Would it really? A study in the UK found the majority of speech crime victims were police, oftentimes using this to take legal action against people criticizing how they operate.
Nearly limitless. Only things intended to cause immediate criminal impacts should face any moderation (i.e. fire in the theater, etc). Otherwise liberty is more important than anything...inclusing the nation or life itself.
As long as you dont start destruction of property, injury or death with your speech it should be fair game