Democracy is a system in which your party loses elections. And when they lose, do you want them dictating what you can and can’t say?
No one has a monopoly on the truth.
In fact, our greatest scientific discoveries (the closest thing we have to Truth) have been forged by “offensive speech”. The ability to offend actually helps minimize misinformation.
If debate is always a diversionary tactic and we should prioritize action by picking a side, why should we necessarily side with you? Are you always right?
Let's trust the billionaire execs at Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter to listen to the correct academics rather than responding to the incentives of capital. When faced with calls to ban pro-Palestinian rights activism on their platforms, they've never caved before
> Let's trust the billionaire execs at Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter to listen to the correct academics rather than responding to the incentives of capital
That's what we're doing now: it's a neoliberal "free market" and the acolytes of the Chicago School tell us that the incentives of capital will eventually lead to the best possible outcome because rational actors will make perfect choices with complete information.
Not if the Left actually builds arguments and movements to change minds and and wins political power. But instead many spend their time begging the rich white men at Facebook and Twitter to decide which political speech deserves to be hidden from millions of people
The speech in your post is oppressing me right now. Cease and desist your verbal oppression or else I will use state-sponsored violence to end your oppressively free speech.
In the US? Yes it is. You realize you are quoting a 1919 supreme court case (that used the "fire in a theater" argument to make protesting against the draft illegal)... which has been overturned 50 years ago, right?
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to constitutional scholars. What law school did you go to? How long have you been a member of the SCOTUS bar? What law reviews have published your work and how many constitutional law cases have you argued?
I think you should review the HN guidelines, as it appears your comment is breaking several of them. If you want to make posts like this you should build your own HN.
That is a gross mischaracterization, although one that I would expect given the track record of this conversation. Your comments are filled with an unhealthy level of vitriol, and I think it would be a good idea to cool down for a while.
Straight out of the obfuscation and doubt handbook. Instead of addressing the issue, go straight for attacking the messenger and divert, deflect, and distract.
Stop peddling conspiracy theories and bad faith arguments.
Your "misinformation" is the notion that masks work, vaccines are not "100% effective" as originally claimed, and that the coronavirus strain causing covid-19 is man-made. You want to stifle political opinions that threaten your narrative, and you have twisted your words in such a way that you are framing state censorship as a form of liberation. Your advocacy for state controls on speech would be far more at home in a totalitarian regime such as the DPRK, and I suggest you pursue your ideals there.
Is there an easy copy pasta on exactly how bad the original judgment was? Because there really ought to be one whenever someone posts about fire in a theatre.
Your position is based on a provably fallacious argument. The posters in this thread have provided you with references, but instead you're doubling down and ignoring them.
