Not trying to be pedantic, but can we avoid calling posts submissions? Submission implies diminished status or dependence on a controlling authority when our strength is our independence from voices which arbitrarily decide what forms of criticism are unacceptable.
Submission implies diminished status or dependence on a controlling authority
This is like that 'master / slave' idiocy that went on at github
In the context of what's going on here, a submission is an article given for consideration.
It is not a diminutive or relational in any way to the status of humans in hierarchical interactions
independence from voices which arbitrarily decide what forms of criticism are unacceptable.
There is much wisdom in this, thus all speech is free speech
The main problem with the ideal of free speech is that it legitimizes lying. Free speech is to communication what anarchy is to social conduct. Everyone has the right to express their beliefs, but not to misrepresent the facts in order to cause someone harm. This isn't an arbitrary position, but one which is consistent with reason and with the common law. The problem here is that "civilized" society has misrepresented the origins of the common law. At common law bearing false witness against one's neighbour was unlawful, and not simply a tort which considered only reputation while ignoring the intent of the liar, that diabolical nature which perverts the truth in order to cause injury.
but not to misrepresent the facts in order to cause someone harm.
I am of the firm opinion that personal responsibility is a major factor of civilized society.
I agree yelling fire in a cinema when there is none is a very sensible thing to hold accountable.
But we are not talking about 'the outside' we are talking about a text only internet discussion forum, with the ability to consider the evidence is at a maximum.
The main problem with the ideal of free speech is that it legitimizes lying.
Huh? Allowing all speech to be free does not legitimize false information, only people who believe without critical thought do that
In reality, any restriction to speech is a fast track to forcibly stopping people from communicating.
What that communication contains is separate to the issue of stopping people from communicating.
we are not talking about 'the outside' we are talking about a text only internet discussion forum, with the ability to consider the evidence is at a maximum.
It still has real world effects, eg the panic that resulted when the War of the Worlds was on the radio and people thought it was a real news broadcast about an alien invasion.
Allowing all speech to be free does not legitimize false information, only people who believe without critical thought do that
Nobody has the authority to "allow" what is unlawful, to do so is conspiracy. Many people do not apply critical thought, for example the 18% or so of US adults who trust their national news organizations.
In reality, any restriction to speech is a fast track to forcibly stopping people from communicating.
Do you think that I should not be forcibly stopped from DOXing you and making the false accustaion that you rape children?
What that communication contains is separate to the issue of stopping people from communicating.
Not in terms of ethics it's not. You could apply your argument to social settings to reach the conclusion that someone verbally abusing random strangers should not be stopped.
Do you think that I should not be forcibly stopped from DOXing you and making the false accustaion that you rape children?
Go for it, all it will do is reveal the nature of who you are
Not in terms of ethics it's not. You could apply your argument to social settings to reach the conclusion that someone verbally abusing random strangers should not be stopped.
I already have come to that conclusion.
Until physical action is taken (I include intimidating proximity in the definition of physical), nothing real is being done.
If you are offended by what is said, you have chosen to be offended. Your offense is not my problem.
Go for it, all it will do is reveal the nature of who you are
So you think that it's OK to slander people? If you don't think that it's OK then do you think that people should just sit on their hands when something bad happens?
Until physical action is taken (I include intimidating proximity in the definition of physical), nothing real is being done.
view the rest of the comments →
UglyTruth ago
Not trying to be pedantic, but can we avoid calling posts submissions? Submission implies diminished status or dependence on a controlling authority when our strength is our independence from voices which arbitrarily decide what forms of criticism are unacceptable.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
This is like that 'master / slave' idiocy that went on at github
In the context of what's going on here, a submission is an article given for consideration.
It is not a diminutive or relational in any way to the status of humans in hierarchical interactions
There is much wisdom in this, thus all speech is free speech
UglyTruth ago
The main problem with the ideal of free speech is that it legitimizes lying. Free speech is to communication what anarchy is to social conduct. Everyone has the right to express their beliefs, but not to misrepresent the facts in order to cause someone harm. This isn't an arbitrary position, but one which is consistent with reason and with the common law. The problem here is that "civilized" society has misrepresented the origins of the common law. At common law bearing false witness against one's neighbour was unlawful, and not simply a tort which considered only reputation while ignoring the intent of the liar, that diabolical nature which perverts the truth in order to cause injury.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
I am of the firm opinion that personal responsibility is a major factor of civilized society.
I agree yelling fire in a cinema when there is none is a very sensible thing to hold accountable.
But we are not talking about 'the outside' we are talking about a text only internet discussion forum, with the ability to consider the evidence is at a maximum.
Huh? Allowing all speech to be free does not legitimize false information, only people who believe without critical thought do that
In reality, any restriction to speech is a fast track to forcibly stopping people from communicating.
What that communication contains is separate to the issue of stopping people from communicating.
UglyTruth ago
It still has real world effects, eg the panic that resulted when the War of the Worlds was on the radio and people thought it was a real news broadcast about an alien invasion.
Nobody has the authority to "allow" what is unlawful, to do so is conspiracy. Many people do not apply critical thought, for example the 18% or so of US adults who trust their national news organizations.
Do you think that I should not be forcibly stopped from DOXing you and making the false accustaion that you rape children?
Not in terms of ethics it's not. You could apply your argument to social settings to reach the conclusion that someone verbally abusing random strangers should not be stopped.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Go for it, all it will do is reveal the nature of who you are
I already have come to that conclusion.
Until physical action is taken (I include intimidating proximity in the definition of physical), nothing real is being done.
If you are offended by what is said, you have chosen to be offended. Your offense is not my problem.
UglyTruth ago
So you think that it's OK to slander people? If you don't think that it's OK then do you think that people should just sit on their hands when something bad happens?
The repugnance of of malicious lies is very real.