Do we have any evidence that it's true? Anecdotally, it seems that the more the internet has expanded our ability to communicate, the more widespread misinformation has gotten.
I see the moral and anti-authoritarian arguments against censorship, but only in the context of accepting the costs. This "have your cake and eat it" argument feels hollow.
I don't think this is the right conclusion. After thinking about it more, it's not like the internet is patient zero for conspiracies and misinformation. It's just that the internet has exposed to the rest of us how common it is for people to hold such beliefs.
> Anecdotally, it seems that the more the internet has expanded our ability to communicate, the more widespread misinformation has gotten.
I completely agree, but why should we assume falsehoods and truth travel at the same rate? History would suggest otherwise.
This slippery slope is fallacious.
There's quite a lot of psychological evidence suggesting that first impressions stick stronger than corrections (which everyone knows who has ever accidentally believed something just because they heard it quickly), that only people who are predisposed to corrections actually believe them, and that in others corrections even augment belief in the originally wrong claim ("see, the mainstream media feels threatened by this revelation!")
There's also a good book by Bartels and Achen[1] suggesting that prevalence of wrong beliefs can actually increase with education (climate change denial is more prominent among highly educated Republicans, highly engaged people on both sides of the political spectrum are more likely to make wrong assumptions about the demographics of the other), because they have more capacity to rationalise false priors.
So there's actually significant reason to believe that more speech, by increasing engagement increases partisanship, which in turn leads to ample adoption of misinformation. Which I think makes a little bit more sense when one looks at the state of discourse in the last few years.
[1]https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/de...
Christianity, for example, was supported by blasphemy laws. Once those laws were undermined or removed its doctrines and practices were able to be challenged, and now we see greater numbers of non-believers in formerly Christian countries as a result.
There's certainly dogma in that example but not the sort you were positing.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, you've time limited the results for no apparent reason. That a lie can get halfway round the world before truth has a chance to get its trousers on does not obviate the power of truth and the power to speak truth.
This is alt history. Religious rule in the Western World came to an end through revolution. The French revolution in particular. Religious power was ousted out of systems of governance by force, civic codes were established and that was that. In the communist world, the other large sphere that is now irreligious, force was used even more explicitly. Nothing had anything to do with peasants having a discussion about religion over a cup of coffee after blasphemy laws were lifted. Secularism as well as religion were imposed by elites and institutions, blasphemy laws were lifted afterwards.
Given these two facts, it's far easier for lies to spread quicker than truth.
How do you solve for this in your spherical cow model of free speech?
Which lies have persisted the longest, and were those lies supported by free speech or by censorship?
The truth may never become as widely known as the lie due to the frictions it encounters in spreading. People like to see news that confirms their own biases (me too), they like spreading news that's counter-intuitive or unusual, and they hate reading boring stuff (like fact-checks with a long list of citations). An interesting lie will spread quicker and wider, and be remembered for far longer, than the correction that just a few days later.
Overall this whole "free speech kills lies" idea sounds like religious dogma to me. It may be true in some cases, but it's taken as an immutable, universal article of faith and its proponents never feel the need to cite any actual evidence or address the horrific consequences of the edge cases. It's an idealistic image of how the world works, similar to a socialist utopia.
Free speech is crucial to liberty and progress, and the government must not regulate speech. But that should not apply to private platforms.
Yes, that's unfortunate. There is no way to consistently detect lies, which is also unfortunate for anyone arguing for censorship as then you cannot ascertain which claims should be censored and which should not.
> Lies about, for example, the stab-in-the-back, tobacco and WMDs in Iraq got the liars what they wanted at the cost of millions of lives.
I don't know what "stab-in-the-back" is but tobacco and WMDs are examples of lack of speech. If we'd all had access to secret documents then the lies about WMDs wouldn't have worked quite as well, I reckon.
> Overall this whole "free speech kills lies" idea sounds like religious dogma to me
Which is ironic considering you've stated it again, and again without reason to back it up.
> its proponents never feel the need to cite any actual evidence or address the horrific consequences of the edge cases
There are no edge cases because it's not promising utopia, it's promising freedom, and it does that because the alternatives are worse - I would rather choose free speech for all than your idea of censoring people based on which method? The abilities of the high priests to divine it, perhaps?
Now that would be religious thinking.
Edit: typo
The edge cases are where millions die because of lies perpetuated unchecked. "Freedom" is the ability to say whatever you want without the government getting involved, nothing else. If a private party doesn't like what you say, tough shit get off their property. Otherwise you're impinging on their freedom to keep anyone the hell they want off their property.
Speaking of high priests, it would be pretty funny if discussion boards required declarations of faith to join and being kicked off was akin to excommunication. In such an environment, moderation is just another name for "suppression of heresy within the religion". Surely the government wouldn't dare intervene in the free practice of religion, would they?
Overall, I find it hilarious in this whole discussion that conservatives appear to be arguing for more government interference in private property rights and freedom of expression.
When did this happen? The Holocaust? If there weren't blasphemy laws then the Bible could've been challenged and you wouldn't have rampant anti-semitism waiting to be pushed into something far more abhorrent than nasty speech. Same goes for the cause of the pogroms, free speech would've been more likely to end them before they had begun.
There are plenty of other socialist movements that ended in genocide of many more millions - would you say they existed in an environment of free speech?
> "Freedom" is the ability to say whatever you want without the government getting involved, nothing else
Freedom of speech is the ability, without interference by government or society, to say what you want, to whom you want, at the time of your choosing; and to listen to whom you want, when you want. The US government is restrained in interference by the constitution but that does not mean other entities don't interfere in others' speech. Was there no racist action before racist action was defined in law?
> If a private party doesn't like what you say, tough shit get off their property. Otherwise you're impinging on their freedom to keep anyone the hell they want off their property.
There are exceptions to every rule - arrest warrants for certain classes of crime are one example, you cannot simply tell the police to go away if you're wanted for murder. When the application of several entities' rights butt up against one another then one right or entity's rights may have more merit than another, which is why we have courts to decide on such novel moments or for legislators to define the sensible limits of rights.
Since you're really talking about social media though and not physical property, I would agree except in the case of monopolies. If HN wants to kick someone off, no problem. FB or Twitter or Google are different propositions.
> Overall, I find it hilarious in this whole discussion that conservatives appear to be arguing for more government interference in private property rights and freedom of expression.
I'm not a conservative, nor an anarchist. Regardless, government is supposed to interfere where rights are being impinged in order to protect those rights. Hence, you've got the wrong end of the stick, we "conservatives" are arguing for government interference against censorship.
Because time matters. Look at elections (where there are huge incentives to exploit the fixed timescale), or look at fraudulent operations like pyramid schemes - eventually they get exposed, but if the originators are sufficiently disciplined to cash out and bail before that they may reap handsome profits. The incentives to spread false information are a function of the profits that can be obtained from doing so before the next decision cycle.
As a parallel example, look at the way the clock influences strategies in professional sports, with teams using timeouts and deliberate fouls to game the outcome of a match. At that point they're not playing ball, but rather a meta-game about time management. It's one reason I like baseball; the game runs for a defined number of plays (9 innings, each of which runs until 3 batters have been struck out), so while games can run very long, that sort of metagame doesn't really exist.
It's not that I like censorship, in fact I'm adamantly opposed to it. But saying 'boo censorship, yay free speech' is ducking the real and measurable problem of false content spread by a mix of ignorance and dishonesty.
I support calls for more education and critical thinking, but that takes years to pay off; the answer to high levels of fraud or corruption is not as simple as 'let's just create a culture of honesty', which substitutes the desired outcome for the solution.
Consider also specific examples of disinformation campaigns. It's easy to create the appearance of controversy by attacking the formation of social consensus, and then to point to point to that appearance of controversy as pseudo-evidence that the prevailing public consensus is a deception carried out by The Powers That Be.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ - trolling behavior in anti-vaccination forums
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ - tobacco industry disinformation strategies
That's an interesting paper and I hope to give it more than the cursory read I've given it so far. I've requested the dataset (there's a waiting period of 4 weeks, unfortunately) because the outcomes obviously rely upon what is considered false news. Their reliance upon "independent" fact-checkers is not good enough in my eyes, because of what I've learnt about those doing the fact checking (just one example[1], there are many).
I agree, false content is a real and somewhat measurable problem and that it is spread through ignorance and dishonesty. However, we know from experience that censorship does not lead to a culture of honesty - far more often it is used to support the opposite - and would you contend that it encourages critical thinking? Those cultures certainly support education as long as it's approved. Hence, I'm not sure why any of those should count against having more free speech.
I'm not against being pragmatic, I simply think that there are other more effective and largely unheralded ways these problems could be mitigated. For instance, you shared a paper on trolling (I've yet to read, my apologies). Instead of widespread censorship in response, why not give users the powers that social media companies have? I've seen Twitter claim that they removed bots and score users based on behaviour, why can't you or I see those scores or know who bots are? Why can't I be given power over the algorithms and filters that dictate my feed? Surely that would be a better way forward that diktat by very powerful entities from above?
Free speech implies the freedom to choose who to listen to, and censorship also removes that.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
The ultimate free speech hasn't lead anywhere good on the internet because quacks that previously where relegated to soap boxes in their villages when free speech was thought of in the US are now given the same platform and power of voice as field experts who have studied their domain for years and know the dangers.
Hard to separate that out from the algorithms that promote videos. Would it be as bad, in your eyes, if discovery was "flattened", so to speak? i.e. no recommends, no shaping of the feed, no shadowbans or hidden videos
They post videos at almost hourly pace, distributed over several channels and each video has a unique image to it (ie, different logos, different TTS settings). If normal well researched content had to compete with that, it would loose by being buried under the sheer mass of bot generated bullshit.
And that isn't even counting the number of videos produced by actual humans that are just as bad.
A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't above threatening violence and law suits (usually libel) against those exposing them or simply posting the truth, I've heard of multiple instances of that occuring, atleast one in-person.
This isn't two sides arguing peacefully about one position or the other, it's one side being violent and disrespectful to the other. "Flattening" the discovery of other content is basically asking the otherside to be not-violent and stand back so that the violent side can have their say.
Sometimes violence comes from both sides of the debate too (ie, US politics) but that doesn't make the amount of disrespect by people purposefully lying or spreading lies any better.
Free speech, as I see it, means that you can express your opinion freely without repercussions unless it's advocating for violence against people or groups of people. If you're talking about facts, those should not fall under free speech under the simple premise that facts are either provable or you should say that you have no proof or you should expose them as the opinions they are.
Of course, but truth wins out over the long run.
> If normal well researched content had to compete with that, it would loose by being buried under the sheer mass of bot generated bullshit.
How do you stay above it all? It's not censored now but you seem able to detect it and protect yourself.
> A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't above threatening violence
That is censorship, I'm not sure how that supports an argument for more free speech? We have laws against assault already.
> and law suits (usually libel) against those exposing them or simply posting the truth
How could they win? Defamation laws, at least in the US, value truth above other considerations.
> it's one side being violent
Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a free speech argument?
> and disrespectful to the other
I'm also not sure why this is relevant - it's not nice but so what?
> Sometimes violence comes from both sides of the debate too (ie, US politics) but that doesn't make the amount of disrespect by people purposefully lying or spreading lies any better.
Violence and disrespect really are completely different ball games, I don't see how conflating them clarifies things.
> Free speech, as I see it, means that you can express your opinion freely without repercussions unless it's advocating for violence against people or groups of people.
I agree, that's a very good starting point.
> If you're talking about facts, those should not fall under free speech under the simple premise that facts are either provable or you should say that you have no proof or you should expose them as the opinions they are.
If you could find someone who can judge such things infallibly then perhaps I would agree.
I doubt that, and if that was even the case, until then lies can do a lot of damage.
>How do you stay above it all? It's not censored now but you seem able to detect it and protect yourself.
I don't. Sometimes I get fed bullshit and believe it. I'm certain there is things I believe right now that are lies. Sometimes I find out a more proper explanation, sometimes I never get any truth.
Getting behind what is lies and what not requires education, something the US for example has abandoned over time for the rich to enjoy.
>That is censorship, I'm not sure how that supports an argument for more free speech? We have laws against assault already.
Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals. Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink".
>How could they win? Defamation laws, at least in the US, value truth above other considerations.
In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer.
>Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a free speech argument?
Free speech is valuable in respectful and calm debate. Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence.
>Violence and disrespect really are completely different ball games, I don't see how conflating them clarifies things
Reread, I don't conflate them.
>If you could find someone who can judge such things infallibly then perhaps I would agree.
It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable. If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm.
Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia.
> Censorship is enacted by government, not private individuals.
This is not true at all. Free speech is not a synonym for the US 1st amendment. That part of the constitution only protects government interference, which implies that there can be other types, and there's more than one country in the world. Are you really going to claim that social media companies cannot censor?
> Besides, they are smart enough to never call for violence directly. They say "I wish someone would call SWAT on this guy" or "this kinda behaviour ends you with a broken nose wink wink".
This sounds to me like conspiracy theory talk, as does the bit about rich people. I'm sure both happen but to paint everything or everyone that way lacks nuance at best and sounds like something you'd hear from a quack in a tinfoil hat at worst.
> In the US, a lawsuit isn't about who is right but who has enough money to keep the lawsuit going for longer.
This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect?
> Disrespectful and violent speech is not free speech, it's violence.
> Reread, I don't conflate them.
If you didn't then you just have. I suspect you, either knowingly or unknowingly wish to tie disrespect to violence because it's convenient for arguing against disrespectful speech being free. Well, SCOTUS has ruled that even some forms of "violent speech" are covered by the 1st amendment (speech containing threats must be credible and imminent to lose coverage), disrespect is definitely covered.
Can I blashpheme or is that too disrespectful? Is satire allowed or is that too disrespecful? Would I be committing violent acts by dismissing God? I'd expect that kind of talk from religious fundamentalists.
> It doesn't have to be infallible, just reasonably provable or not disprovable
You're circling back to a court system with judges, but…
> If you're lying on purpose then this entire point is moot anyway, no need to prove anything. Then you're just out for harm.
…you appear to have discarded presumption of innocence along the way. Terrifying.
No, a court still has to prove that but it's a lot easier in most cases where harm is intended.
>Can I blashpheme or is that too disrespectful? Is satire allowed or is that too disrespecful? Would I be committing violent acts by dismissing God? I'd expect that kind of talk from religious fundamentalists.
The disrespect is meant in terms of a reasonable discussion. Blasphemy usually lies in the realm of religion, which is in the realm of opinion, unless you don't believe in freedom in religion. Satire is rarely calling for violence last I checked and most reputable satirists I know check their facts before the show to make sure they don't get things wrong. Plenty of people like to dress up violent speech as satire but it rarely works well when they're not punching up.
>If you didn't then you just have. I suspect you, either knowingly or unknowingly wish to tie disrespect to violence because it's convenient for arguing against disrespectful speech being free. Well, SCOTUS has ruled that even some forms of "violent speech" are covered by the 1st amendment (speech containing threats must be credible and imminent to lose coverage), disrespect is definitely covered.
As you so beautifully stated above, free speech isn't a synonym for the US paper scrolls. In germany, violent speech is far outside the realm of protected speech. If you threaten to punch someone in germany, the courts can put you in jail for up to 30 days, depending on situation, history and such, usually it's a fine or 1-2 weeks probation/public work. The exceptable clause is that the speech must clearly be unactionable, ie you jokingly tell your friend you're gonna punch them if they win against you in Mario Kart or something like that.
>This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect?
If it's not actionable then it doesn't matter what the law says since it's not enforcced.
>This sounds to me like conspiracy theory talk, as does the bit about rich people. I'm sure both happen but to paint everything or everyone that way lacks nuance at best and sounds like something you'd hear from a quack in a tinfoil hat at worst.
There have been multiple instances of this happening over the years, most famously KeemStar, if I recall the name correctly, had a private stream for dedicated followers where he would repeatedly wish for someone to be SWATted, which can be a death sentence in the US.
>This is not true at all. Free speech is not a synonym for the US 1st amendment. That part of the constitution only protects government interference, which implies that there can be other types, and there's more than one country in the world. Are you really going to claim that social media companies cannot censor?
The german constitution may not know free speech, but it knows freedom of opinion, which is a tighter subset. Censorship in germany is still defined as being done by the government.
In colloquial language you may refer to some actions that SMC do as censorship but it is hardly correct. What SMC are doing is enabling or surpressing people's ability to share their speech.
>Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia.
Germany has clauses that make you criminally accountable for lies you tell. It's called "Volksverhetzung" and generally means any type of speech that is capable or suitable to arouse hatred against people, a group of people or otherwise defined membership in some thing. It has well defined (by our constitutional court) limits and it has worked well in the past to root out fascist groups and bring them to justice before they do anything to actually harm people.
> The disrespect is meant in terms of a reasonable discussion.
Which begs the question. Again we are led back to the question of what is (un)reasonable? Something you repeatedly fail to define, beyond persistent conflation with violence. I'm yet to see the necessary link between unreasonableness and harm. I think you're being unreasonable and likely you feel likewise - where's the actual harm?
> Blasphemy usually lies in the realm of religion, which is in the realm of opinion, unless you don't believe in freedom in religion.
“the realm of religion” is a curious phrase - do religious people not speak? I wonder if you're making such a nebulous distinction because you'd rather not have to ban several religious books (and hence religions. Hooray for freedom of religion) because they're quite clearly more hateful and an incitement in theory and in practice than nearly everything ever written on Twitter and Facebook that you would hold "unreasonable".
I'd allow them their freedom to speak, and I would allow people to speak against them. Freedom of religion (and from religion) is predicated on freedom of conscience, which is only fulfilled by having freedom of speech.
> Satire is rarely calling for violence last I checked and most reputable satirists I know check their facts before the show to make sure they don't get things wrong.
Forgive me, but this is utter nonsense. Why would satarists need to check facts? Is it because ssatarists in Germany are liable to be put in danger and legal hazard?[1]
> Plenty of people like to dress up violent speech as satire but it rarely works well when they're not punching up.
The world is not a black and white place filled with victims and oppressors. You might note how all oppressors are against freedom of speech.
> As you so beautifully stated above, free speech isn't a synonym for the US paper scrolls. In germany, violent speech is far outside the realm of protected speech. If you threaten to punch someone in germany, the courts can put you in jail for up to 30 days, depending on situation, history and such, usually it's a fine or 1-2 weeks probation/public work.
It's good to hear that you have an assault law. Are less or more people attacked in German for expressing a view than in the US? By all accounts Germany still has rampant anti-semitism[2] and regular attacks on citizens for their speech that are incited by hateful speech. German law would restrict criticism of those incitements because it's “the realm of religion” and "hateful" to do so, no doubt.
> >This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect?
> If it's not actionable then it doesn't matter what the law says since it's not enforcced.
I'll have to send you to court for telling lies ;-) You can search for "us defamation win" and see a whole host of times courts decided before either side ran out of money. Usually, running out of money leads to a settlement if the plaintiff is not the underdog, which makes the settlement by the SPLC of Maajid Nawaz's case[3] perplexing… if we assume your statement to be true.
> There have been multiple instances of this happening over the years, most famously KeemStar, if I recall the name correctly, had a private stream for dedicated followers where he would repeatedly wish for someone to be SWATted, which can be a death sentence in the US.
Are you arguing that private individuals do or don't enact censorship? Hard to tell, you seem to have started out on one side and are now on the other.
> The german constitution may not know free speech, but it knows freedom of opinion, which is a tighter subset. Censorship in germany is still defined as being done by the government.
Censorship in German law. It's quite possible for censorship to be possible and not covered by law. If the law changes tomorrow will your argument change too? (or again)
> In colloquial language you may refer to some actions that SMC do as censorship but it is hardly correct. What SMC are doing is enabling or surpressing people's ability to share their speech.
In English that is known as censorship, since at least the publication of On Liberty, but it's also a good example of German paternalism and application of positive liberty, the form of "liberty" that always leads to bad things.
> > Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia.
> Germany has clauses that make you criminally accountable for lies you tell. It's called "Volksverhetzung" … > and it has worked well in the past to root out fascist groups and bring them to justice before they do anything to actually harm people.
Pre-crime as a category is tyrannical. Those who cannot remember - or understand - the past are condemned to repeat it.
[1] https://m.dw.com/en/german-satirist-jan-b%C3%B6hmermann-sues...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/magazine/anti-semitism-ge...
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-...
Ah, I think I see what side you stand on, if you can't see all the far-right stuff going down where Nazis are parading US politics for almost 4 years.
>In English that is known as censorship, since at least the publication of On Liberty, but it's also a good example of German paternalism and application of positive liberty, the form of "liberty" that always leads to bad things.
I disagree, positive liberty ensures that as much as your liberty remains preserved without infringing on the liberties of other people. Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begin.
>Pre-crime as a category is tyrannical. Those who cannot remember - or understand - the past are condemned to repeat it.
Is it pre-crime if you've been calling for the death of a minority group? That is a crime in my eyes, regardless of how actionable it was, as it hurts those minorities regardless due to the sentiment expressed.
>Are you arguing that private individuals do or don't enact censorship? Hard to tell, you seem to have started out on one side and are now on the other.
Private individuals can surpres speech by their own speech, that isn't censorship but it is violent in many cases.
>Forgive me, but this is utter nonsense. Why would satarists need to check facts? Is it because ssatarists in Germany are liable to be put in danger and legal hazard?[1]
If they are lying about things, yes. A satirist can't just start insulting people or spew lies without repercussions from the people injured as a result, physically or otherwise.
>I'd allow them their freedom to speak, and I would allow people to speak against them. Freedom of religion (and from religion) is predicated on freedom of conscience, which is only fulfilled by having freedom of speech.
I don't think that freedom of religion requires an american freedom of speech but feel free to prove me wrong. While germany has problems with anti-semitism, people are working against it, the government is working against it.
THe US in recent years has started to have problems with anti-semitism, however, since your government is not doing anything in that regard, one has to rely on civil organization to attempt to even track it's rise.
The US has many problems at the moment and a lot of them stem from the fact that the US is unwilling to stamp out those people who will only take the liberties granted to them to stamp those very same liberties out. In the early 20th century, germany had much experience in this regard, you can't use speech to surpress nazis, they will use guns and violence to silence you if the government does not stop it.
But feel free to wallow in your imagined freedoms until the steel boots come.
Ah, the promised rise of fascism in the US government! It's been almost 4 years now, when will it materialise? There are, however, fascists in the streets burning, looting and rioting, and they've been implicated in the deaths of many people. Do wake me when the government fascism begins though ;-)
> I disagree, positive liberty ensures that as much as your liberty remains preserved without infringing on the liberties of other people. Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begin.
That's not positive liberty, that's negative liberty[1].
> >Pre-crime as a category is tyrannical. Those who cannot remember - or understand - the past are condemned to repeat it.
> Is it pre-crime if you've been calling for the death of a minority group?
No. Pre-crime is the judgement of a crime that has not occurred.
> That is a crime in my eyes, regardless of how actionable it was, as it hurts those minorities regardless due to the sentiment expressed.
Words do not cause objective harm, that's why there's a distinction easily made between words and other actions like using your fists. Feeling hurt by words is something we would all wish to avoid but incredibly dangerous as the basis for criminal statute.
> Private individuals can surpres speech by their own speech, that isn't censorship but it is violent in many cases.
Speech is not violence, violence involves the application of physical force. If speech causes someone to anticipate imminent physical force then I would criminalise that. Luckily, that was done a thousand years ago in English common law under "assault" so I don't need to bother.
>Forgive me, but this is utter nonsense. Why would satarists need to check facts? Is it because ssatarists in Germany are liable to be put in danger and legal hazard?[1]
> If they are lying about things, yes. A satirist can't just start insulting people or spew lies without repercussions from the people injured as a result, physically or otherwise.
Luckily (again) there are laws in place for malicious lying that defames, in civil law. It is only a crime in countries that are not au fait with freedom, like Germany.
> I don't think that freedom of religion requires an american freedom of speech but feel free to prove me wrong.
If the government can interfere in your speech then you may only practise your religion - and I'm including private practice - as much as they allow. That's not freedom, that's an allowance, like daddy might give a child at the weekend.
> While germany has problems with anti-semitism, people are working against it, the government is working against it.
Hard to believe you could write that if you'd read the article. I wouldn't point the finger at anyone else if you can put out an apologetic like that, and yet you do…
> THe US in recent years has started to have problems with anti-semitism, however, since your government is not doing anything in that regard, one has to rely on civil organization to attempt to even track it's rise.
I'm not an American, and you'll find that anti-semitism in the US is rising for reasons that will be uncomfortable to you politically[2], though it should hardly be a surprise that socialist movements are anti-semitic, we had at least a whole century of it to learn from.
> The US has many problems at the moment and a lot of them stem from the fact that the US is unwilling to stamp out those people…
Did you write that and then this with a straight face?
> But feel free to wallow in your imagined freedoms until the steel boots come.
I was worried about satire in Germany but I see it is safe in your hands.
> In the early 20th century, germany had much experience in this regard, you can't use speech to surpress nazis, they will use guns and violence to silence you if the government does not stop it.
Actually, Germany institued speech laws against Nazis, from[3]:
> In Weimar Germany, the Nazis and their ideas were censored – regularly, in fact. Leading Nazis including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for hate speech before they rose to power – and Streicher was imprisoned twice. The Nazi publication Der Stürmer was regularly confiscated and its editors were taken to court on at least 36 occasions. Anti-Semitic speech was explicitly prohibited by law, leading to more than 200 prosecutions in the 15 years before Hitler came to power. ‘As subsequent history so painfully testifies’, writes civil-liberties campaigner Alan Borovoy in When Freedoms Collide, ‘this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it’.
By contrast, Nazism did not arise in the US despite there being widespread racism, and the use of free speech actually helped the civil rights movement bring equality to all. In the words of Frederick Douglass from his speech, "A Plea For Freedom of Speech in Boston"[4]:
> Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfhQhdA-zss A primer in the two concepts of liberty.
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/anti-semitism-derail-black-lives-ma...
[3] https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/28/you-cant-defeat-rac...
[4] https://lawliberty.org/frederick-douglass-plea-for-freedom-o...
Edit: typo
What we're experiencing is the limit of freedom of speech.
It used to be that at scale things were controlled by the media and governments because they had the monopoly on the infrastructure required, which was costly.
You can say that this enabled a level of censorship, but that also enabled to filter a lot of noise.
What we're experiencing is what happened with the printing press and every communication technology since - the democritisation of communication. That always leads to unrest because it moves power towards the masses.
> You can say that this enabled a level of censorship, but that also enabled to filter a lot of noise.
I would say that because it did, but on the noise point, I cannot listen to or read more than I did then, I only have 24 hours in a day. I can choose from more sources but the volume has not gone up. I am the filter now - should I not be?
Are you going to tell me what I should read and listen to? I have to tell you that I think I can do a better job that you at that, thanks all the same.
I mean I can invoke Godwin's Law, but we don't have to go that far back; everybody knew Trump was a terrible person and he should not have been eligible for the presidency, but because of tolerance he was given a shot anyway, and a minority of the population (~19%, ~63 million votes) managed to make him president.
My new favorite wiki page (for now) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Firstly, the Nazis rose despite and possibly helped by speech laws.
> My new favorite wiki page (for now) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Secondly, Popper is not calling for speech to be supressed in any way except for those who choose violence instead of speech. The original[1] is better than a Wikipedia article that cuts off the important part of his words:
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion…
Hence he is supportive of the right to discussion for all. He contrasts this with those who won't support speech and sets the limits:
> for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols
They've given up on speech so he gives up on tolerance, which is wise. Free speech is there to reduce violence and supplant it and nothing Popper wrote in the "paradox of tolerance" contradicts that.
[1] https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...
Which we cannot do the way Youtube worked until now. The way YouTubes algorithms worked rational argument gets drowned out and public opinion cannot keep anyone in check.