I'm mean it worked from the 50s to the early 90s. Surely it can work here too
What? Are you fucking kidding me? New York Times posts an article advocating against free speech.
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
Unlike the disinformation which you see as no problem at all, only it being pointed out as one is the problem.
Anyways, nah I don't think NPR is a problem
Because the government being in charge of the news would remove disinformation as it has been shown in the USSR, or China in the past...
If Trump wins the election will you still hold that view?
USA
BBC and PBS are not bad and those are both public news as well.
If Trump wins again America is Failed State.
AS evidence of What? Twitter doing what they want with their property? You're not showing me "proof" of anything here other that Twitter doing what they want in their own damn house.
Considering what it was like in those times, my view wouldnt exist. Any talk like that would get you fired or deported. It wasn’t much better than under a Soviet Russia. Remember, the deportation of Anarchy laws from Wilson’s time is still in effect... He’ll just do more of that
BBC is garbage because it is British. Just pure trash. The British press is the only press worse than our own.
The funny thing is I knew 17th was wrong, looked it up, saw it was the 18th and then wrote 17th anyway. My mistake.
I never said crimes I said they were restricted forms of speech. Like I think we all actually agree that there should be some limits to speech the disagreement is where the line is.
It was in reply to your comment about amendments adding rights not removing them. And again if you weren't intentionally trying to argue in bad fair why laser in on slavery rather than taking into account the part about the sale of alcohol. Pretty blatant attempt at a strawman. Be less lazy next time
To an extent. But there's also an element of accident involved.
As an analogy, in evolution, some animals evolve to fill very specific ecological niches. They're very good in those niches, but if something changes that niche substantially, they're pretty much screwed because they operate poorly outside the very narrow parameters of the niche. If we extend this to societies, societies to need to be able to adapt and change to circumstance, and if - for whatever reason - they have systems and rules that worked very well under certain conditions but are critically disrupted by a change then they may likewise struggle. As evolution can take a long time, so can societal change.
Yeah, species adapt to changes in the natural environment but these changes aren't a deliberate choice. Simply because nature isn't an artificial construct like society is. If your opinion is that free speech should be restricted to prevent eg Russian trolls from destabilizing western society with disinformation than this by itself is a contradiction since these are the fundamental values that you wish to protect and which distinguishes democracy from tyranny. You simply become the thing you fear. Any dissenting voice could be silenced with an appeal to 'disinformation' which will end democratic plurality. To add insult to injury you also increase formalization and juridification of social and political interaction even further. It's an almost predictable pattern; distrust and alienation increases in society that makes people susceptible to disinformation so we make more rules and laws to restrict people so maybe it will go away. It doesn't address the fundamental issues so the discontent will just find other means to express itself. That is how democratic values erode over time. Without cohesion or mutual reciprocity society is really just a hollow entity. It's the very reason why dictatorships live in constant fear of it's people.
Mm. Okay, but we have long had values about forms of freedom of movement. Let's take the USA as an example. The Statue of Liberty has a plaque that reads:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
And now after centuries of this value, look at people who have turned on asylum, want to turn off the lamp and close the golden door, and even oppose the constitutional definition of a US citizens by birth. All manner of justifications exist for overturning those rights and values, why is that not resisted as America becoming what it was supposed to stand against? Why is it okay to throw those values in the bin, yet regard free speech as inviolate?
There are obviously very good reasons for the utility of free speech such as you have given. But if the argument is one of utility, then in a situation where the utility of free speech slips into the negative, the conclusion becomes to constrain free speech.
That is an ideal indicative of the times but bears no semblance on the values on which the constitution is based. That is why I said without cohesion or reciprocity society is a hollow entity. Immigration even negatively affects that cohesion. By importing masses of muslims that don't share the democratic ideals of western society you are actively undermining it's values. I mean, the proof is in the pudding for that.
There still needs to be a definition of what is 'negative' which is the mere essence of censorship.
Where just going to go full racist? (Or religionist if you like) Alrighty then.
Let's be clear here: you are making a fundamental attack on values society supposed to uphold, because it's convenient to you and you believe in it. "We should have a liberal, humanitarian, egalitarian society with freedom of movement. Except for those guys because we don't like them". Well then you've compromised being liberal, humanitarian, egalitarian, and your freedom of movement.
So these values are not actually such a big deal, are they? If we can drop stadards in some, we can drop standards in others, too. Free speech is not immune.
Finally, note your rationale for restricting rights and values: self-preservation of society. Okay, so by this logic, what do we do should it becomes apparent free speech may damage society? Obviously, we should constrain it.
Did I stop you from speaking? I was just pointing out a fact. Nothing PC about it
Have you ever consider the problem is actually you? Because the facts don't match your rhetoric. How about you find a country to live that hates everyone else? I here they do that well in Iran. If you so worried about Muslims, then perhaps Hungary or Russia. Maybe North Korea?
Well no, you fail to give a definition of what a 'society' is according to you. The only thing that unites millions of people in anonimity of one another is shared values. In western democracies those are the enlightenment values we just established. Muslims who have diametrically opposed religious beliefs reject those values so obviously their place is in their own islamic countries. That is why you have borders. I mean, you are a proponent of the welfare state so how do you want to maintain that with unregulated immigration? How do you maintain solidarity without cohesion? It's simple, you can't. Immigration has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. You just conflate the two because it's easier to fit it in your political narrative.
Generic, societal, "we". There are always individuals who disagree. There are sometimes majorities of individuals who disagree, but isn't that the point of constitutions, to protect from the "tyranny of the majority"?
It's people interacting. So think, how do people interact? All of that: institutions, government, workplace and economy, social, culture. You can tell me about "Enlightenment values" all you like, but bluntly I probably have more in common with a random Muslim from my home city than I do with a random German. It might be the results of yesterday's cricket match, drinking tea, the number 34 bus keeps missing its schedule, misuse of apostrophes for plurals and possessive, or whether it's better to buy a smartphone at Currys or Argos.
Okay, you are laying out a clear rationale for restricting free speech: it should be stopped when it damages solidarity and social cohesion.
The function of free speech is to allow us to voice our opinions without impediment. Surely you understand the absurdity of saying free speech is vital, but we can't let certain people into the country because they might say things we don't want them to.
On the most superficial, surface level you might have more in common with a muslim on the bus but name one muslim country that practices the values that are so important in democratic society. There is not one because their beliefs diametrically opposes those values. Now imagine having unregulated immigration and that one muslim on the bus become millions do you really believe that won't have a detrimental effect on democratic values? You must be really naive to believe that because it already does. The surveillance state being one of them. Segregation, crime, terrorism you name it. Islamic terrorism has had a huge detrimental effect on democratic societies and so does segregation.
No, we can't let certain people into the country because they don't believe in enlightenment values with many even actively wanting to undermine/destroy them. Societies already have enough problems without adding more to it, espescially since most of the burden is already for the disadvantaged. And when social cohesion crumbles it will eventually take down everything with it. No matter how many laws you implement to restrict freedom of speech. With stricter immigration policies you wouldn't have your Brexit mess.