misdirection, lying, etc. yelling fire in a crowded theater.
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
20 points (88.5% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27525 readers
1215 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The idea of free-speech-absolutism relies on a top-down model which only examines how a government or platform should regulate speech, while completely ignoring how free a space is depends as much on who participates as who controls.
Free speech is also dependent on the twin stupidities that a "market places of ideas" will produce good ideas, or that debate could possibly settle the most trivial issue.
I can go to the movies and scream "Fire!" Or be able to loudly make jokes about bombs at the airport.
Imagine someone wants to defend their rights in court against a company that wronged them.
But the company has the resources to publish AI-generated child porn featuring that person everywhere.
And that would be legal.
The very first thing that would die is truth. There is no way to solve that without "censoring" or limiting speech.
Here are some problems that would just rocket their way into everyone's lives
- Impersonation, made much easier online
- Scams and frauds would no longer be crimes
- Unregulated advertising, effectively the same problem as above (this health supplement will cure cancer and make your dick grow!!!!!)
- Defamation and general reputation killing would happen every 5 seconds
- Some assholes leaving porn playing on public streets and in front of schools, 24/7, because lulz
- Same as above, but with disgusting shit like 2girls1cup, goatse and similars
Any law that prevents me from counterfeiting money is an intolerable encroachment on my right to free speech
Free speech really is the trapdoor to a slippery slope.
I guess you could argue Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance would be an unsolvable logical error that would result.
But also I would argue that anyone who is calling anyone else a free speech absolutist is misunderstanding what that other person stands for.
What about people who call themselves free speech absolutists?
I doubt that most of them have the same interpretation of absolutists in this context that you do.
I get called a free speech absolutist because I believe that you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist, I would not.
How is free speech in your definition "absolute"?
Out of curiosity, do you consider the sentence below to be a direct incitement to actionable violence?
"It would be patriotic if someone were to stop Person X from enacting their agenda, even if they used force."
If yes, what exactly qualifies it as a "direct incitement"?
Additionally, would you say it makes a difference whether the sentence above is said by Joe Shmoe vs televised and said by a powerful person with many followers hanging at their every word?
Things like death threats being legal would be pretty awful. Husband saying "if you leave me I'll murder you"? Oh well, he's just exercising his free speech, so it's not an issue.
People could defame others, openly call for genocide, plan terrorist attacks etc without consequences. It would be a pretty awful society to live in.
free speach can plan terrorist attacks
Wat!
murder and manslaughter don't just stop existing... let alone terrorism laws and conspiracy to commit crime just because you can say naughty words
The point is that the planning itself wouldn't be illegal if there were absolute free speech. Of course the murder still would be, but ideally you'd want to stop that before it happens, which will be tougher when just talking about murdering people is perfectly legal. Free speech isn't just about "naughty words".
It's free speech but still a threat maybe?
Arresting somebody for making a threat would be impeding their free speech, would it not?
That’s not how free speech works.
You're looking for the Nazi Bar
I tried it myself with my IRC server. No rules, you can say whatever you want to say, unless the majority wants you out then you get kicked out, just to sprinkle some absolute democracy too.
The end result was basically no messages that didn't contain at least one of faggot, nigger, retard, or at least a very offensive joke of some kind. Like sure free speech is cool, but it was getting very uncomfortable, nobody was interested in joining anymore because of it, and people were also leaving because it's just plain unpleasant. Naturally the majority remained the problem until I had to put my foot down and shut down the server because I just don't want to be hosting that shit anymore.
You can have free speech without being an asshole and shouting it everywhere possible. That is enforced via rules and moderation. It's a balancing act.
You can see it in controlled media speech already. Propaganda can say whatever the hell it wants without any repercussions whatsoever until it pisses off the wrong corporation/government.
It's like that, but for everyone.
There are certain materials such as CSAM that people are not totally immune to. Most people will always find it repugnant, a minority will always be drawn to it. But there is a portion in the middle who do not ever think of it only because they are not exposed to it. Unrestrained sharing of it normalises it and the behaviours that come with it. There are some parallels with addictive drugs. Constraints on free speech are akin to banning cigarette advertising or making heroin illegal. Yes, in principle, everyone should be able to manage themselves well enough that anyone can take whatever they want. In reality, we democratically decide society is just healthier for everyone if certain things have constraints.
I think I like this argument. Absolute free speech would make surprising things quasi-legal. Things like CSAM could be shared and people could be forcefully exposed to it "because not doing so would limit my free speech".
That's a good one.
Well if it's really absolute then you could legally point a knife at someone and say "give me your money" . You haven't caused physical harm at that point and you're only exercising your freedom of speech.
You could say OK, that's not allowed because you're mugging somebody and that's a threat of violence. But in that case you've carved out an exception for threats of violence and therefore calling for violence against a person or group also becomes not allowed.
What about exceptions for fraud? What about for verbal abuse or harrassment?
And if you're going to have exceptions, then how do you deal with obfuscated language and insinuation? "Would be a real shame if something bad were to happen to your family" - is that allowed? A nice friendly, supportive comment like that? If you can't say that you can't say anything.
Or that's usually how it goes with people defending hate speech or veiled threats of racial violence.
Hate speech, You can't forbid it under absolute free speech.
What problems would that bring?
You could openly plott assassinations or terrorist attacks and law enforments couldn't do anything until some other law is broken (which might be to late).
Wouldn't that make law enforcement easier, if attacks were plotted openly?
"Hey guys, tomorrow I'm buying the illegal weapons"
So use a legal weapon instead.
That’s assuming you find the person before they do whatever they want with those weapons.
I think it's mainly that hate drowns out everything else. If you're in a group of hateful people, you either one of them, or keep quiet or join in. So it won't take long until everything except hate is silenced. In effect making everyone miserable. Even lots of the hateful people are miserable and that's what makes them hate on everyting. And so will become everyone else. I think that's the unhealthy dynamics of hate.
And it brings censorship. You can't talk openly about certain subjects if you're sure you'll get molested in turn. It'll cut down on people practicing free speech and make it more a theoretical thing, that's now just for people who are bold and loud.
Lots of lies, hate, propaganda. You couldn't trust anything or anyone. Because everyone would just claim arbitrary counterfactual things. Also lots of spam, doxxing would be legal. Privacy would be eliminated since everyone can spill any beans. I think life would turn into a big shouting match.
Intermediary stages are something like the lot of failed "free speech" platforms online. Or 4chan. Attracts nazis, edgy people, people with behavioral issues and everyone talks like a 12 year old, yells at each other and they use the N-word a lot since that get's them off. Though that'd become unattractive once it's allowed, the thrill is that it's disallowed. Also spamming, saying stupid things and offending people is quite popular.
And Hollywood and any book author would go bankrupt immediately. Copyright is just a restriction on free speech.
As someone once said on TV Tropes, "flat earthing is all fun and games until one of them tries to build bridges".
A philosopher has told a rule that goes like this:
You are free to say and do whatever you want, unless it would hurt your fellow humans.
I find ur existence is harmful to my mental state. Therefore u existing is in violation of this rule.
I like the idea but it had flaws
You are right, it needs some kind of common understanding about what is hurtful. Or a way of resolving such conflicts.
I think the lack of such a common understanding is very new (we live in an overly individualistic time) and didn't exist at that time when he said that.
Doesn't "total free speech" boils down to "the right to lie"?
Are you obliged to tell the truth (or be sanctioned in some way) or can you just lie?
If free speech is understood as: government cannot stop you from saying things, it can become toxic, awful, but no real problems would arise