If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
No... You know it doesn't and you also know that this kind of speech is nothing like the speech that was directly prevented here by the government, so let's stop playing games.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
One way in america we've always defined free speech is this:
"your right to swing your fist ends when it lands on my face."
I don't think people have a right to free speech when that speech is purposely, and I do mean purposely because it was done on purpose, designed to spread misinformation in such a way that others are harmed by it.
There are limits to free speech, and the conversation ends with Popper's paradox.
The United States government lacks the right to do this in essentially all cases because it's a right retained by the people. It's a pretty nice right and ought to be protected, which it -- usually -- eventually is.
> The scientific consensus is that countries that took a much more proactive, aggressive approach were far more successful in preventing people from dying. And this isn't like a seatbelt issue where people just put themselves at risk.
Human rights are not -- and should not be -- subject to scientific consensus.