Even if it's harmful. The solution to bad speech is free speech.
If you censor harmful speech, then when a harmful person is in power, you've set up a framework for them to censor what they consider harmful (and tomorrow, that might be, say, trans rights).
Civil libertarianism is about defending your right to say what you want, even if you disagree with it.
@forest I don't support free speech in all contexts, no. I don't think you should be allowed to make serious threats to kill someone, or deliberately incite riots, or shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
"I'll defend to the death your right to say it" etc
@NoHaxJustRadvylf If you had an understanding of the legal framework behind free speech, you'd know that that is not speech. Speech comes with time, place, and manner restrictions.
You can publish what you want in a book, but you can't throw that book at people.
i really dont want to derail but this is reminding me of those car alarms that go off when youre like, near the car at all. do i have a right to have that not happen to me when im not touching their car?
@UnrelatedString Well you can't really. But there are cases where it's clear which is bigger, and I think that's what should underlie any decisions about what speech is allowed
@forest What I agree and disagree with and what is harmful or not are two entirely different things
You're not making decisions about what speech is allowed. You're making decisions about whether or not someone in power can suppress speech. You're creating a framework for oppression.
@thejonymyster I disagree with harmful things, so I consider them more or less the same.
@forest Which is why disagreement and harm are different things
@forest Well now we're at kind of a meta level. I support free speech when it's objectively not more harmful than helpful; deciding that is the hard part
Death threats and inciting riots cause people to live shorter or live with emotions that make them less happy, so the happiness from the freedom of the person making the threats is typically less
@NoHaxJustRadvylf And in the short term, banning such things is better. In the long run, you end up banning counter-protests against genocides. That's where the "rule" in rule utilitarianism comes in.
@forest Well once again we're on different levels. I'm talking about from an objective point of view, where the government is an all-knowing god sort of thing. Once we bring it down to the level of actual governments and actual squishy non-spherical humans, it gets more complicated, yeah.
Again, no dictatorship ran on a platform of free speech... That's why it's important to maintain it. It'll hurt in the short run, but it'll help in the long run.
If you are assuming that only the "good guys" will be in charge of censorship, then you're at least being consistent. But that assumption is a dangerous one to make.
i almost want to say it would be a damned tall order to actually implement a censorship regime that would in fact be meaningfully beneficial in the short term before imploding into totalitarianism
@NoHaxJustRadvylf From a moral point of view, I disagree with groups like StormFront. From a political point of view, I support their right to say what they say.
Well okay I guess a clearer way to say it would be "I think we have the same underlying, terminal-goal-level morals, and different ideas of how the rest of the morals should work to get there"
Unless you genuinely believe that the government is an objective bystander with aforeknowledge of all effects of their actions, then I can't see how you could make the conclusions you make.
@NoHaxJustRadvylf In case it's not clear I am not arguing for anything like that. My idea of how much "censorship" there should be is probably a bit less than currently exists in the US, but still existent.
Perhaps some of it, but at the end of the day, I disagree with censorship on a fundamental level. It should be used like imprisonment is (or should be) used: exceedingly sparingly.
Sure, and in an all-knowing-god-objective side of things, summary execution without trial should be entirely up to the government without any chance to appeal. But that assumes the government is flawless.
I feel the same way about censorship. Fine in philosophical theory, but almost never in reality.
And while in theory I would support, e.g., Nazis not being able to spread their ideology, I agree with you that in the real-world there is nobody who can be trusted to make those decisions.
Even inciting riots should be protected. Actually causing damage while rioting, on the other hand, shouldn't. Otherwise someone in power decides that BLM demonstrations are rioting, and pro-BLM stances are inciting riots. Etc.
