Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on child porn

Re:Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on c... by erikpukinskis on Sunday September 09, 2012 @04:35PM (#4496889)

This essay is a great example of sapping an argument of its power through dilution. At various points he argues all of the following:

1) the law is too broad (innocent teenagers)

2) the law is not broad enough (should cover murder too)

3) the wrong judicial standard is applied (strict liability)

4) abridging free speech is fundamentally destructive

These are four totally distinct elements of our legal structure, each with vastly different potential solutions. They are bound only by the fact that they are critiques of the current legal system.

To try and take in all four at once leads to a combinatorial explosion of possible solutions.

If he believes no. 4 then nos. 1-3 are immaterial. And even if he sells you on 1-3, none of those are good arguments for abolishing the law. In the end, the essay loses its power because he is not presenting a coherent critique.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rick Falkvinge: Why free speech is harmed by the ban on c... by MartinCron on Sunday September 09, 2012 @07:55PM (#4497539)

And, if one of the arguments is weak or preposterous, your opponent can tear that one apart and ignore the merits of the position. It is a persuasive pet peeve of mine.

[ Parent | on HN ]