Immoral, unethical, impractical, or contrary to human rights, perhaps.
I'm not sure that's a helpful distinction. In some sense, everything we classify as a 'fact' is a judgement call: is the sun a giant ball of fusing hydrogen? I mean, probably, but maybe we're all living in some sort simulation and it doesn't really exist at all; Or maybe you are living in your own personal "Truman Show", being fed lies by everyone who shows you scientific "evidence" about the sun's nature.
But "the sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" is a different type of statement than "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla", or "Mozart is better than Beethoven".
"The sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" has the possibility of being proven false. This means it's either a true or false fact.
If I said "NYC is the capital of the United States"* I'm either lying or mistaken
What makes it a lie vs mistaken? Whether it's a genuine belief, that I have a reason to have the belief. For example if I made the assumption it's the capital because it's the biggest city then I'm mistaken.
It's a lie if I know it's not true, if I ignore information that falsifies the fact.
*To avoid semantics I mean the official capital of the country not like "it's important"
And even for claims which are in the realm of "fact", which are false, but which are truly believed, we need to be careful about suppressing truth. There was a time when "the sun goes around the earth" was accepted "scientific fact". Lots of flat-earthers genuinely believe the falsehoods they're spreading. Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood"?
I don't have a clear answer, but I do think there needs to be a line.
The line is whether the person is genuine in belief and the potential harm. There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth.
No direct harm; but it may be comorbid with other things that cause harm, like vaccine skepticism.
There is a question about what the best response is. Just censoring disinformation like this may cause people who notice / experience the censorship to give more credence to the disinformation. But as is apparent from the whole "flat earth" fiasco, there are a large number of people who seem simply incapable of understanding basic math or scientific principles. The earth can be proven round by personal observations made by anyone. If people still cannot be convinced the earth is round, how are they to be convinced about things that they cannot collect personal observations, like vaccines, or the holocaust, or January 6th?
At any rate, I'm glad I'm not running a platform like YouTube; it's not an easy problem.
I still say there is a difference between "Africa exists" and "gwd's statement about the lack of 'facts' is heretical and they should be imprisoned".
Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"?
To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"?
Saying "I think <public figure> is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the <insert pejorative here>."
And yeah, in North Korea you'll absolutely be jailed for expressing some opinions. That may make them illegal, but it doesn't make them no longer opinions.
But would you dare state out loud in Germany that, in your opinion, the official number of Holocaust victims is actually much less than what's been widely reported? Even if you had what you believed was solid evidence supporting your argument? I bet you wouldn't.
> neither is, "Kick out all the <insert pejorative here>."
How about voicing your opinion that <people from some country> should be barred from emigrating to <European country> because <crime statistics>? Bet you wouldn't try that either, because your opinion is in "hate speech" territory now.
Ugh, what?
This isn't an opinion, it's incitement to a crime.
> Detention of Rümeysa Öztürk / Mahmoud Khalil
These clearly are for opinion, and are widely criticized as being vindictive and unconstitutional.
Not really an opinion but it can be a belief. I'm not sure why we are okay with people believing that Earth is ~6000 years old, but not with someone believing that we are in a simulation and everything before e.g. year 1999 is just a collective memory fabrication.
If you want to visit that idiotic Noah's Ark museum, go.
If you want to prohibit teaching about evolution in schools, go to hell.
Yes. You can believe this fact to be false but you might also be lying. How do you show this? By showing why you believe it to be false
People might not have gone to jail, but they did have voices and access to society limited or removed because of their opinions.
I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!