I think the author does a fantastic job of laying out the case for exactly why censorship is so harmful, not only for the individual that is censored but for all other individuals, even if their inner selves perfectly align with their outer selves (for the time being).
An argument has been made that most Americans instinctively know that …
I think the author does a fantastic job of laying out the case for exactly why censorship is so harmful, not only for the individual that is censored but for all other individuals, even if their inner selves perfectly align with their outer selves (for the time being).
An argument has been made that most Americans instinctively know that free speech, both politically and culturally enforced, is a Good Thing™, but because we've gotten used to that being so well centered within the Overton window for so long that, ironically, free speech itself has allowed the fringes to drag the free speech Overton window along. People /know/ free speech is a Good Thing™, but are unable to defend it in the marketplace of ideas. Why? What possible argument could be "winning" against free speech?
The author mentions but doesn't expand on what I think is the crux of the issue (I'm referring to just what is in this post, the full book may, which I've just purchased and hope it does), which are the "carve outs" in speech. Listed here: plagiarism, blackmail, libel, slander, incitement, perjury, true threats, false advertising, etc. The average person, if truly pressed, could probably muster a reasonable defense of free speech, but could they muster a reasonable defense of why say, libel, shouldn't be protected but hate speech should be? After all, they're both "harmful". As mentioned, the relevant part of the First Amendment is ten words, none of them mentioning exclusions for safety. These exclusions exist mostly as judicial opinions, often far lengthier, nuanced, and narrow than their headline names would suggest. It would be hard, almost impossible, for the average lay person to make the case that "false advertising" shouldn't be protected but "misinformation" should be. Isn't "false advertising" just corporate "misinformation"?
The trick would be King Mustaches are doing is, of course, to expand those "safety" exclusions as much as possible so that as much speech as possible falls into the restricted bucket. What we need more of then aren't robust arguments in favor of free speech, but robust arguments against safety exclusions, built on a principled easily articulable framework that can be applied generally rather than narrow carve outs (libel, slander, perjury, etc.). Such a framework may even need to reconsider some of the existing carve outs and if they're truly necessary (a dash of the fringe ideology on the opposite end of the spectrum to help drag the Overton window back over).
🎯 🎯 🎯 You nailed it. The ‘new’ words being over-used. Mis and Dis-Information. False Advertising we can mostly recognize, but misinformation seems to be anything that goes against the political party’s narrative. It doesn’t agree therefor it is wrong.
All of the things excluded are subject to laws. Laws must be subject to clear meaning otherwise they will not function properly and will be overturned on appeal. "Misinformation" and "hate speech", I submit, cannot be succinctly defined. As we saw with covid much actual, valid, factual I formation was labeled misinformation. As information concerning the vaccine and boosters still is. In essence, IMO, misinformation and hate speech is speech the person making the allegation against the speech disagree with. It is censorship.
Exactly what I was thinking... libel is a legal construct, not a moral one. Its legal definition is quite specific, and anyone who wishes to prosecute an alleged libel has a high bar to clear. As opposed to "hate speech", which has no legal definition and can be practically anything.
I think the author does a fantastic job of laying out the case for exactly why censorship is so harmful, not only for the individual that is censored but for all other individuals, even if their inner selves perfectly align with their outer selves (for the time being).
An argument has been made that most Americans instinctively know that free speech, both politically and culturally enforced, is a Good Thing™, but because we've gotten used to that being so well centered within the Overton window for so long that, ironically, free speech itself has allowed the fringes to drag the free speech Overton window along. People /know/ free speech is a Good Thing™, but are unable to defend it in the marketplace of ideas. Why? What possible argument could be "winning" against free speech?
The author mentions but doesn't expand on what I think is the crux of the issue (I'm referring to just what is in this post, the full book may, which I've just purchased and hope it does), which are the "carve outs" in speech. Listed here: plagiarism, blackmail, libel, slander, incitement, perjury, true threats, false advertising, etc. The average person, if truly pressed, could probably muster a reasonable defense of free speech, but could they muster a reasonable defense of why say, libel, shouldn't be protected but hate speech should be? After all, they're both "harmful". As mentioned, the relevant part of the First Amendment is ten words, none of them mentioning exclusions for safety. These exclusions exist mostly as judicial opinions, often far lengthier, nuanced, and narrow than their headline names would suggest. It would be hard, almost impossible, for the average lay person to make the case that "false advertising" shouldn't be protected but "misinformation" should be. Isn't "false advertising" just corporate "misinformation"?
The trick would be King Mustaches are doing is, of course, to expand those "safety" exclusions as much as possible so that as much speech as possible falls into the restricted bucket. What we need more of then aren't robust arguments in favor of free speech, but robust arguments against safety exclusions, built on a principled easily articulable framework that can be applied generally rather than narrow carve outs (libel, slander, perjury, etc.). Such a framework may even need to reconsider some of the existing carve outs and if they're truly necessary (a dash of the fringe ideology on the opposite end of the spectrum to help drag the Overton window back over).
🎯 🎯 🎯 You nailed it. The ‘new’ words being over-used. Mis and Dis-Information. False Advertising we can mostly recognize, but misinformation seems to be anything that goes against the political party’s narrative. It doesn’t agree therefor it is wrong.
All of the things excluded are subject to laws. Laws must be subject to clear meaning otherwise they will not function properly and will be overturned on appeal. "Misinformation" and "hate speech", I submit, cannot be succinctly defined. As we saw with covid much actual, valid, factual I formation was labeled misinformation. As information concerning the vaccine and boosters still is. In essence, IMO, misinformation and hate speech is speech the person making the allegation against the speech disagree with. It is censorship.
Exactly what I was thinking... libel is a legal construct, not a moral one. Its legal definition is quite specific, and anyone who wishes to prosecute an alleged libel has a high bar to clear. As opposed to "hate speech", which has no legal definition and can be practically anything.
Spot on. I think this is why so many things are framed in terms of "harm reduction," even when it is difficult to see what harm is being caused.