Is free speech a good and meaningful principle?

Increasingly many people don't seem to think so. Criticisms levied against the US implementation and similar reference its inconsistencies and bias; books derezzed from schools and libraries, police brutality and bogus charges against protestors. Where it does win out, the results can be harmful; successful advocation of violence, the spread of wrong and deceptive ideas. There is a vision that it can be successfully done without, while retaining the benefit of our free exchange of ideas. That people can independently see what is right and true, and by that knowledge safely enact measures to shape public discourse to be aligned with objective virtue, and get it more or less right. That the 'marketplace of ideas' is a failure in respect of guiding society towards wisdom and understanding and can be replaced. My view is that reality is not so easy to determine and neither is moral truth. The incentive of power is to lead people towards a false reality in order to maintain itself, and any potential subjectivity in the law for what speech may be prohibited will decrease the protection against this. Because lies enforced by the state have much greater potential for harm, the standard needs to be very simple and inflexible to hold up against encroaching corruption. Maybe some limits on speech can be safely imposed, but not many, and not ones that are complex and nuanced. Prevalence of censorship is a powerfully corrosive factor towards the growth and discovery of worthwhile ideas and acknowledgement of reality; the temptation to use it for quick fixes must be resisted, and protections against its use must be strengthened. What protections we have are clearly valuable, as can be seen in the many attempts to silence people that are rebuffed by the law, despite the failures because of those protections not being strong enough.

>>82795 First understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Then demonstrate what freedom itself is. At some level, individuals must come to a compromise with others in society. Who gets to decide what is said is a very different matter than if it should be said. One is an ethical debate, and one is a debate about individual rights.

>>82796 >Who gets to decide what is said This is more what I am talking about here; whether it is valuable to defend a broad right to say things.

>is free speech a good and meaningful principle? It's only good or meaningful in a culture that has not degenerated, i.e. a culture where social ties are strong and people see themselves, and most of their daily social interactions (such as buying something from the store), as existing within a web of such ties. In such a society, the tendency to groupthink can become very strong, and a dedication to freedom of speech is important, while the existing social network will tend to counterbalance the worst downsides of free speech, such as scams and people saying intentionally inflammatory or rude things -- most people grow out of that phase as teenagers, and those that don't will tend to get ostracized until they start doing better. In a culture that has degenerated, social ties are weak and social safety nets are either nonexistent or provided by a central state (and often barely better than nothing). Lack of connection to others tends to make people vulnerable to classic marketing tricks, and leads to a fragmentation of worldview which means that a dedication to free speech is not necessary to have diversity of thought. Lack of a proper (extended) family to grow up in stunts childrens' development and leads to childish behavior out of adults. People in such a culture are easily deceived and, I hate to say it, I don't think there is a way to repair a degenerated culture other than to censor speech which will have the tendency to be deceptive. For instance, most forms of advertising should be illegal.

>>82797 Also, I think much of the discourse referencing the paradox of tolerance essay is a good example of what I'm talking about. The original idea is that speech may represent an existential threat to liberal society and its rights, and so a minimum of censorship is required for such a society to continue at all. This is rational, even if ideas about when speech actually represents an existential threat are debatable. But the problem with using it by itself as a core principle to decide which censorship is necessary is revealed in that debate; because of the significant nuance and uncertainty involved, there is no hard limit on what people can argue and be convinced is such a threat. In fact many of the people invoking the idea seem to not value maximizing free expression at all, and use the word tolerance in a way that is more about egalitarianism than the sense the word was being used in the essay to reimagine the paradox of tolerance as an argument for generally crushing dissent of egalitarian values. This is the inherent danger in employing overly subjective principles in deciding what the limits on speech are; that it will be vulnerable to being twisted in the interest of expanding the power of some group or ideology.

The Achilles' heel of democracy is an ignorant or misinformed voting public. Voters have to have an accurate sense of what's going on in the real, physical world in order to select leaders competently. Organized propaganda and misinformation campaigns can destroy a democracy. In view of that, while free speech should be allowed to the maximum degree possible, organized campaigns of propaganda and misinformation should not be allowed.

>>82804 if something has an achilles heel, that implies that except for that one fact, it would be amazing and nigh unassailable. A better analogy is to suppose a democracy is a car engine, and information is its motor oil. Bad oil, old oil, and not oil at all will adversely impact its performance (perhaps destroying it completely) but it needs also half a dozen other fluids and other things besides, not to mention that its fairly vulnerable to any number of attacks. Like I was saying to the Respected Poster in the other thread on democracy, but my posts absorbed as botspeek, each of the major government types are really very similar, and dependent for longevity Good Succession. Like Monarchies and Aristocracies, a good Democracy must see to it that its new governance class in each generation is well bred and indoctrinated such that no member is too much without virtues, nor too well positioned to sell out his fellows for personal advancement. Even in so called democratic systems, its frequent that some aristocratic filtering is considered natural and necessary, disenfranchisement of criminals, women and children are essentially very weak steps towards aristocracy.

>>82803 You completely misunderstand the point of the paradox of tolerance, the original idea is absolutely not that >speech may represent an existential threat to liberal society and its rights, and so a minimum of censorship is required for such a society to continue at all The point is that a liberal society cannot tolerate those who refuse to engage in civil debate with those who disagree with them. This is exactly why censorship cannot be tolerated, because it enables those who cannot or will not defend their ideas in rational debate to continue standing by silencing their opponents.

In open and free discussion, the truth always wins. Truth can come from anywhere, and the damage that can be done by the censorship of one true voice is far greater than the damage done by allowing one false voice to speak. This is because the single individual speaking truth will find it much easier to convince people, he is right after all. A single voice spewing lies will find his lies difficult to defend. Absolute freedom of speech is fundamental

>>82806 >as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force Do you think censorship is the wrong word for this? I mean it very broadly. What is your objection to my understanding of it? I don't see anything in your interpretation that is incompatible with what I'm saying.

>>82807 >the truth always wins Only in reality not in people's minds. People are too biased and many too stupid. The voice that talks more and loudest with the best insults often wins.

>>82808 Censorship generally refers to a notion of certain speech (rather than actions) being illegal. So I believe >>82806 would be perfectly fine with people advocating for censorship as long as they are never allowed to do it. It's a bit of a narrowminded view of the paradox that, in my view, is selectively applying it to reach a certain ideological endpoint.

>>82810 Yeah I don't see how that language could possibly mean something other than advocating for prohibiting speech in some circumstances. Not tolerating individuals based on their ideology and discourse is clearly inseparable from that. But it's all kind of tangential anyway, since the paradox of tolerance relates to whether censorship can ever be justified, but the question I'm posing is whether free speech is a value worth aspiring to at all, which encompasses both pure and best-effort forms. Some people take it as a given that it is a worthwhile basis for governing speech, but I'm addressing those who do not.

I see some people, either very young or very ignorant, making the same mistake over and over by claiming that free speech is absolute. That clearly isn't the case. The classic example is that it isn't allowable to yell "Fire!" in a crowder theatre when there's no fire. The obvious reason is that a lot of people could be hurt or killed in the stampede that followed. The question is *not* whether there should be absolute free spech or not, as some misinformed people are trying to make it. It is, and always has been "Where do we draw the line." Otherwise you're just living in the idealistic fantasy world of a child.

>>82814 >Otherwise you're just living in the idealistic fantasy world of a child. That's where most political discussions end up anyway. I'm surprised this thread has gotten this far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech >Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. which means everyone (except) me in this thread is retarded, because they're not discussing a specific definition but rather their own reiteration of the thing, effectively making all discussion what it always ends up to be - a compilation of schizophrenic monologues

>>82816 they will reap what they sow.

For fuarrrk's sake don't put an AI generated image in the original post, it's disgusting and tasteless. at least spend 20 seconds on search engine of choice "bald eagle anime" and find something better looking, i can guarantee you will. or not the AI gen eagle is kind of /cyb/ i guess. no state could ever guarantee free speech, period. what we have in my country (USA) instead is protected speech - speech sanctioned by the law, and unprotected speech which can be censored. the distinction here is that theres lots of "illegal" speech that gets stated anyway, censorship does not and could not ever be perfect however authorities will pass legislation, make court rulings, or simply issue orders regulating what can be said - these are nothing more than codified justifications of violence against the state's enemies. basically like a lot of laws, while some censorship laws give the impression of absolute they literally never are, and instead just provide a mandate to police officers to be violent against whomever they please provided that an official okays it statutorily. those with power can say whatever they want. all that being said >>82795 I more or less agree that there should be no censorship, although the tricky part i think is in the details of "how to ensure there is no encroachment of corruption and censorship in state authority". personally its a conversation i dont consider necessary, thousands of years experimentation with different minarchist state structures, most especially the US of A tend towards authoritarianism when we know anarchy works in any conditions when the community is deeply committed to it - of course, it helps when there aren't governments trying to colonize a relatively unarmed populace but this only really spells out to me that there should be less government, not more. I think the burden at this point is on statists to prove worth of the structures of authority they cling to than anyone of a libertarian persuasion to construct a perfect government for them. >>82805 you (and CGP grey, i watched that video too lol) seem to be making a sort of error in analysis that i notice in a lot of people who work outside the sciences but rely on them for meaning. longevity does not equate to quality of life for the population it rules over, and in the case of states it is often the exact opposite. while *some* quality of life is necessary as we all know bread and circuses this is pretty much implemented as minimum viable and equally criticizeable as a suppression mechanism to maintain the existence of a particular regime. which is itself reduceable to the continued usage of a particular brand or uniform. Tradition, understood without attachment to *particular* traditions you might be fond of is simply the accumulation of brands, customs, uniforms, doctrines, etc. that persists or doesn't and it doesn't say anything positive or negative about the tradition itself that it does so - just that it has a lifespan. some animals live longer than others, does this make them greater? In fact, there are many factors that can cut existence short, or provide a niche for generations to come totally external to the animal, or tradition. my argument is not that traditions should be eradicated (its not possible to do so anyhow) but that their remembrance need not rely on authority, indoctrination, and other such hamfisted enforcement. things can continue when they are beneficial and left when they're no longer. >>82817 >>82816 i read every post in this thread because i love you

In a society people should be free to say the Truth, but not to lie. Supporting transgression encourages it. The idea of "freedom of speech" is a really nasty trick the controllers played on people, convincing them that bad things should be defended in order to prevent what is good from being attacked. People have continuously defended evil for the sake of a principle that is never applied to defend what is right. And regardless of the people's will, the controllers restrict people's freedom as they please.

>>82820 if i say that i lie do i lie or do i speak truth

>>82795 People are engaging with the notion of free speech in the wrong way. The preeminent question is not, "What speech should we allow?" Rather, the thing which is most important is technology. It does not matter if you have a "principle" of free speech. The surveillance and distributed responsibility which defines the modern "information age" effectively creates a media complex that is all pervasive and without any accountability - simultaneously engaging with and reacting to inputs by the viewer. The viewer is incorporated as a module which is commanded to constantly emit information. That information is dissected, and the extent to which that module retains certain archaic fetishisms, it will have to be "modified". Fighting "misinformation" is so childish. There is no "Truth", there are competing narratives. Each have a final purpose of perpetuating the technological system. The whole panopticon drives me hysterical. In real time, you can see the total devastation of the human race. There is not even the possibility for the application of "free speech". "We" don't control anythinf. The entire concept is basically outdated. Maybe if this was the 17th century...

>>82814 >The classic example is that it isn't allowable to yell "Fire!" in a crowder theatre when there's no fire. I can't help, but I just don't see the theater thought experiment as an argument against free speech. I mean, sure, technically, you are speaking, but the reason we care about free speech is to exchange ideas, and to guarantee minority views that they won't oppressed (so they don't feel threatened and forced to riot). The example with theater is not engaging in the speech in political way. It's the same difference as the fact that scamming people is illegal (even though you are just saying things), or that ordering an assassination is illegal (even though you are just saying things). Maybe I am retarded, but those feel like very different situations, with only superficial similarities.

>>82818 What we have in the US is the First Amendment: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This is part of the constitution, which supersedes all other law. What exactly it means is subject to interpretation, and so it is not an infallible protection, but it is a strong one, because it prevents the existence of a broad category of possible laws. For instance recently the Supreme Court ruled to strike down Texas and Florida laws attempting to impose government standards on the moderation practices of social media platforms: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-statement-netchoice-decisions, and this happened because these laws plainly violate the First Amendment. Governments of other countries I think have a harder time restraining themselves from imposing arbitrary speech controls, because they do not subject themselves to such strict limitations. I for one think the First Amendment is a Very Good Idea, a relatively clear line drawn where a large portion of encroachment of authoritarian control can be clearly seen by all as going over it, and being itself criminal.

>>82824 didnt they make it illegal to talk soykaf about is real? last 10 years i saw several news of teachers getting fired for mentioning unfavorable history. More recently they even fired a teacher who merely questioned if jk was evil. And then you got the whole x-phobia as a beating stick. The law exists on paper but governments still influence private companies to censor on their public platforms which means you dont really get to enjoy your free speech anywhere online.

>>82828 I don't think the FA protects against public school teachers being fired for what they teach, and it's hard to imagine how it could, because teaching is the state paying someone to convey particular information in the first place, and any protections of being able to do that in a certain way would have to include some notion of what content of speech is correct; it wouldn't make sense to have someone teaching kids about how the earth is flat and the moon landing was fake and they can't be fired for that, for instance. Which isn't to say that it isn't worth trying to stop selectively misleading government propaganda being the content of education, but it's not what clear and unambiguous free speech protections do for us. As for influencing private companies to censor, yes, some of that happens. For instance I suspect that the TikTok ban was not only a national security thing, but also an effort to bring public discourse more under the control of US companies, which are run by people who may be easier to direct and coerce covertly. Still, what could stand against that in a robust way resistant to corruption? The First Amendment stands against it as best it can, by preventing overt, explicit government censorship, which does mean something, especially now that mass media is less centralized and controlled than it was in the 20th century paradigm of finite monopolies of television, radio stations, and newspapers. We are at least free to decide for ourselves what software and services to use, and make more of our own. I'm not sure there is any better way to do it than strengthening the protections we have already in place.

>>82818 >CGP grey honestly never heard of this. I think you're presuming too much about my arguments. >Longevity does not equal quality of life I've said basically nothing about QoL, but I'll be quick to point out that there aren't any magically stable low/middle QoL states sitting around. To have longevity is to last long. To have stability is to be such that a minor perturbation is quickly and naturally righted rather than to flying out of control. A stable airplane, when nudged by a bit of wind, returns to the forward and level position that it originally was in. A stable government is resistant to various perturbations without succumbing to corruption, purity spirals, or other sorts of collapse. This says nothing about QoL, any more than it says anything about the position of the airplanes centre of mass, though CoM and QoL may have roles in stability. For a plane to be stable it must remain with approximately the same attitude over time even in the face of minor perturbations. For an organization to be stable, it ought to function in approximately the same way, and generally resemble itself from year to year and generation to generation. Tradition naturally has to be a part of this, but its not so much necessary for the attainment of stability as a natural consequence of stability. Stability need not be eutopian. If McDonalds is stable, then in the year 2200 I shall likely be able to go and order a McGriddle hardly distinguishable from the one I could get today, but I probably could not get softserve. What is salient here is that it is stable, not that it is wonderful. I'm not sure it is good for countries and such organizations to be truly stable, but this is what stability means, and good succession, I assert, is a key to organizational stability. >some animals live longer than others Good to bear in mind that great means, to a great extent, merely large. Long lived animals are great in lifespan, and therefore greater than less long lived ones, all other things being equal. >the recollection of traditions can continue when they are beneficial and left when they're no longer. I like to think my country has a bit of a tradition of hamfisted enforcement, and that all in all its a beneficial one. >>82831 >I don't think the FA protects against public school teachers being fired for what they teach yes that's ridiculous. Teachers at government schools are basically the mouth of the state, like press secretaries and that sort of thing. If they don't say what they're supposed to then of course they can be fired. >>82828 maybe the more salient point to think about is the Alex Jones thing. Because he said sandyhook is fake now he's been fined what, a billion dollars ? Absurd.

>>82835 >Because he said sandyhook is fake now he's been fined what, a billion dollars ? Absurd. He repeatedly made false accusations about the actions and motivations of non-public persons, and those statements materially hurt their quality of life in the form of an internet hate mob and in a couple of instances, credible threats of violence. Libel is not protected by the constitution and never has been. He also utterly bungled the court case, he basically got a default judgement.

>>82795 >>82796 This is what I support 1. absolute freedom and privacy of thought (the government cannot interrogate you or brainwash you or attempt to force people to get neuralink implants or anything) 2. absolute freedom and privacy of communication (if you speak with someone privately or using encryption the government cannot attempt to bug you, wiretap you, seize your communications or decrypt them) 3. freedom of speech, with the exception of speaking against equal legal rights (so no advocation of white supremacy, monarchy, etc.)

>>82843 1. imagine a hypothetical world where perfect telepathy is real so the government can read your thoughts without interrogation or neuralink. like, a government psychic can be instructed to read your thoughts against your will. in that hypothetical world, there would also be an ironclad law that prevents the state from taking any physical action against you if you don't take any physical actions. i.e. you can think about murdering someone all you want and the police will be notified of it, but they won't arrest you unless you actually murder someone or set up some sort of trap/buy illegal poison/etc. would you still care about privacy of thought in that case? 2. again, this is really more about preventing the government from taking unwarranted action than having complete privacy. no one has ever come up with a single reason why anyone should have absolute freedom of privacy and communication. if you're doing something bad, I want to know about it. if you're not doing anything bad, nobody cares. and of course I consistently apply this principle to the state as well in my ideal world. EVERYTHING the state is wasting your tax dollars on should be public knowledge. I want to see every transaction every senator makes. btw passwords/credit card numbers/identifying biometric data don't apply here because that stuff is about access rather than communication. the safe is transparent but I'm still the only person with a key. 3. yeah you clearly haven't thought any of this through lol eliminating privacy would make the world a better place. you shouldn't NEED privacy to express your honest beliefs. consider using darknet to buy drugs. victimless crimes should be legal and you shouldn't have to hide any consensual transaction. it took decades for weed to be relegalized in America precisely because so many people opted to get better at hiding their true beliefs about the broken system, rather than try to fix the broken system. I'm sure this naive obsession with privacy is contributing to the cultural rift happening now by forcing people into so many online enclaves

>>82846 >hypothetically, Not a very constructive hypothetical because it relies on completely different situation from reality, not a realistic alternative to now. Obviously a technology that allowed government agents to read minds should simply not be developed and should not be allowed to be developed, and if it were developed, it should be discontinued and all records about it burned. > it took decades for weed to be relegalized in America precisely because so many people opted to get better at hiding their true beliefs about the broken system, rather than try to fix the broken system. Got any evidence for that? I've heard people calling for legalization for as long as I can remember.

>>82836 >default judgement is that you're in debt a billion dollars for saying some possibly wrong things and then retracting later yeah ok nice. I guess accidental death stuff must get people on the line for billions of dollars per victim right ?

>>82849 Generally corporations (and people in general, for that matter) aren't stupid enough to not show up at court.

>>82850 Oh, sorry. I just double checked. He didn't get the default judgment for being a no-show, he got the default judgment for obstructing the court proceedings for two years. Such a truthful man.

>>82846 >imagine a hypothetical world that doesn't exist Let's discuss reality. >no one has ever come up with a single reason why anyone should have absolute freedom of privacy and communication Unless you've lived under a rock for the last 25 years, that's not true. Eliminating privacy would not make the world a better place. If it did, then it would already be doing so by now. But that's not happening, it is only making the world a worse place. It's the kind of megalomaniacal beliefs held by people like you, Larry Ellison, and the leadership of agencies like the NSA that are going to result in the formation of an authoritarian government. Societal division has been largely fueled by corporate mass surveillance. In short, corporations coerce people into using their platforms for as long as possible with as much frequency as possible, at the expense of their mental and physical wellbeing, spy on their users 24/7, heavily analyze how their users interact with their platforms, and now promote content to their users that validates the users own world view i.e political, religious, social, familial beliefs. They came to the understanding of these users' beliefs through constant surveillance, of course. There is no realistic means of ensuring that there cannot be any privacy in society that does not call for an external force of some form to enforce that constant surveillance, unless everyone in society agrees to take part in being constantly surveilled, which is not realistically ever going to be the case. Even if they did agree to do so, invariably an external force will hold the reins of that system for widespread surveillance, and will exploit it. >I'm sure this naive obsession with privacy is contributing to the cultural rift happening now by forcing people into so many online enclaves It's not, it's being driven by the complete opposite. People's every action is recorded by their phones/laptops/computers running proprietary spyware OSes, people's internet activity, communications, videos they watch, films they watch, television shows they watch, hobbies, job, education, relationships, religious/spiritual beliefs, political beliefs, sexuality, mental health status, financial activity and status, movements throughout world, ways they react to things, ways they formulate thoughts, etc etc etc, basically everything they do in day-to-day life, is observed, and recorded in corporate databases. These corporations then sell this data, and hold it indefinitely for their own purposes, namely to manipulate their users into spending as much time as possible on their platforms, at the expense of the users' physical and mental health at times. They also permit the United States Government access to the data. They have made such a wealth off of the sale of user data, it is unbelievable, collectively Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and Facebook have to have at least 500-600 exabytes of storage by now. Many people think that the Utah Data Center is built to hold zettabytes or yottabytes of data, to hold the world's data. I no longer believe this, they don't need to when these corporations can hold data on their behalf. I won't bother getting into the histories of the individual corporations, Oracle and Google were products of the CIA (also NSA and DARPA for Google). Prior to 9/11 was a desire by some people in the US Government to begin widespread mass surveillance, for the sake of preventing terrorism, and generally improving national security. These people kickstarted companies like Oracle and Google, and maintained close relationships with them throughout their entire existence. 9/11 was their perfect excuse to begin widespread mass surveillance. I've been conducting extensive research on terrorism-related arrests during the "War on Terror", and so far, out of hundreds of cases, not one arrest can be credited to PRISM-esque mass surveillance, in short, the modes of surveillance still extant have done nothing to protect anyone. I think the lain you replied to is a bit naive, for one, not only governments, but instead nobody, individual, government, corporation, or whatever kind of entity might manifest in the future which we cannot currently predict, should be permitted to violate people's freedom of speech or privacy. I believe this because of how corporations have taken the place of governments in regulating speech and surveilling the populace. It is probably not coincidental that when some of the Bush regime's mass surveillance programs began to die down, corporations like Google began to spy on their users more. There are enough data points collected on people for their entire personality to become known to their observer, and they are. Only communities like this one's insularity can be credited to a desire for privacy. Of the forces driving societal division, some of the biggest are online censorship, and personalized feeds on social media. People's feeds on platforms like TikTok and Instagram have become so personalized now that the algorithm will only display content, and comments made in response to content, that validate the user's own world view. Given enough time this effectively makes it so that people with differing views of the world will become completely incapable of relating to one another, and it is already happening, recently I've seen people try and get into arguments over politics, and eventually one arguer will give up and say that "We just have different views of the world and I can't talk to you about this" because it's too difficult for them to validate their beliefs to another person, the gap has become that immense. Online censorship could even be conflated as being the result of personalized social feeds. I think the censorship does exist, mostly focused on "right" leaning people, which acts as fuel for their victim complex, validates all of their beliefs, and drives societal division in the end. But I also think the censorship of these "right" leaning people is not as severe as they think, as they are subject to algorithms that affirm their worldview, which can entail the promotion of 'propaganda', just the same as everyone else. You seem to think that safety should somehow be guaranteed to you. Safety can never be guaranteed to you, trying to guarantee safety has only destroyed freedom thus far.

>>82831 >>82835 being a mouht piece of the state and forced to run propaganda is arguably the biggest violation of the idea to facilitate free speech. I dont know why people believe its okay just cause taxes pay for it. The state also pays for the public spaces where speech is supposed to be protected... >>82846 and then you wake up in nazi germany / soviet union / china and get killed for being the wrong ethnic type of human / not loyal enough to the party. HF with nothing to hide fool

>>82858 you're being hired to do a job, you either do that job or you get fired. 1A: Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech[.] Teacher to doesn't say what he's supposed to say doesn't go to jail. he gets fired. He hasn't violated any law, congress has made no such law. He just gets fired because he isn't doing his job. functionally I think it would be better if teachers were not on government payroll at all, and public spaces were not under the jurisdiction of congress. Its fair to point out also that the constitution before the pre civil war didn't actually protect freedom of speech in any significant way, it merely limited the powers of federal congress. Post civil war it empowers the federal government to control what the states can do. 1A is far weaker than 2A (right of the people shall not be infringed) because 1A only effects congress (in original form). >state also pays for public spaces I think the state should be free to refuse to pay people to come and speak in public places yes.

>>82852 >Societal division has been largely fueled by corporate mass surveillance. No dude, most people don't give a fuarrrk. Most people don't even know they're being surveilled when they click through those EULAs. >corporations coerce people into using their platforms for as long as possible with as much frequency as possible, at the expense of their mental and physical wellbeing Don't care. If you don't like you're not actually being coerced by anyone. Alternative tech ecosystems have existed for years. What you're doing is like when people blame McDonalds for making them fat. No one is strapping you down and forcefeeding you. >spy on their users 24/7, heavily analyze how their users interact with their platforms, Don't care. Maybe I have a unique perspective here because I used to run a small social media site and I loved analyzing the data. Definitely a fair trade in exchange for a free service you constantly use. What exactly do you think corporations will find when they analyze your usage of their products that's so heinous? >and now promote content to their users that validates the users own world view i.e political, religious, social, familial beliefs. Don't you want that? I do agree it should be easier to turn it off and have algorithmic transparency. I'm not saying the current system is perfect. I'm saying the problem isn't the lack of privacy. It's that the privacy is distributed unequally. Corporations should not have privacy and neither should you if you're voluntarily giving them your data. >They came to the understanding of these users' beliefs through constant surveillance, of course. Don't care. Also you already said that. >They have made such a wealth off of the sale of user data, it is unbelievable, I do think ultimately we need to heavily tax all income generated from public data to fund a UBI. But data will obviously continue to be aggregated.

>>82858 >being a mouht piece of the state and forced to run propaganda is arguably the biggest violation of the idea to facilitate free speech. I dont know why people believe its okay just cause taxes pay for it. How could we "facilitate free speech" in a way that encompasses this?

>>82873 Practically you cant give 100% safety because what happens when laws protect against firing? HR just fabricates another fake but legal reason to fire. That said it would still make things better if you couldn't fire government employees for voicing dissenting opinions. I think educators should just be judged by performance. I dont know why anyone would support running a indoctrination camp sponsored by your tax money.

>>82875 >it would still make things better if you couldn't fire government employees for voicing dissenting opinions Wouldn't there have to be limits to how far they can dissent? There are many things people sincerely believe that would be extremely objectionable to be taught in schools, for a variety of good reasons. >I dont know why anyone would support running a indoctrination camp sponsored by your tax money That's what compulsory state schooling necessarily is. You could get rid of it entirely, but otherwise that's what you've got. They are indoctrinating students in some set of beliefs about the world. There is no practically definable separation between beliefs that are true and objective and beliefs that are untrue or harmful, where that line is will always be fought over by different groups acting on their own bias. Even standardized tests aren't above having bias, because the people writing them make choices about what things are worth knowing and their relative importance.

>>82865 >functionally I think it would be better if teachers were not on government payroll at all, and public spaces were not under the jurisdiction of congress. It's noteworthy that teachers are generally employed by a school district, which is not directly administered by congress. They're not civil servants in the same way that somebody who works at the IRS is. >>82882 > There is no practically definable separation between beliefs that are true and objective and beliefs that are untrue or harmful Lack of a clear dividing line does not imply that there is no difference, nor that adhering to objective truth is not a worthwhile goal. This is a logical fallacy.

>>82886 >Lack of a clear dividing line does not imply that there is no difference, nor that adhering to objective truth is not a worthwhile goal. This is a logical fallacy. Sure, but I'm not saying that. What's proposed seems to be to encode such a line into a useful legal mechanism; somehow preventing the firing of teachers for saying things that are true and should be said, perhaps without firing teachers for the things they really ought to be fired for, despite that different people in different areas will have dramatically different ideas about where that line is. There is a lot of nuance and ambiguity there. This contrasts with the First Amendment, which is more of a blunt instrument that doesn't try to legislate what is true. I think that simple and unambiguous tools are better here because they need to hold up against a lot of strain and abuse.

>>82886 >It's noteworthy that teachers are generally employed by a school district, which is not directly administered by congress. They're not civil servants in the same way that somebody who works at the IRS is. the school district, which is part of the state government and which depends on federal education money one way or another and therefore is ultimately serving at the beck and call of congress. Fedgov from time to time threatens to withhold money from states in order to compell them to enact policies that would be impossible or difficult to do legally. Said money of course mostly being taken from the states first, though there's also wealth distribution going on there and inflation which is its own weird sort of tax. its spaghetti all the way down. but yes, different than direct actual employees of fedgov. Still employees of fedgov thrice removed or so. Should be direct employees of parents (maybe they are but like five or six times removed).

>>82895 >which is part of the state government usually part of a local municipality. A state's department of education sometimes directly manages failing school districts, though. >and which depends on federal education money one way or another receiving a portion of your income from the federal government != completely depending on the federal government. In fact one of the reasons why schools in low-income areas are usually underfunded is because they get less tax money. >Should be direct employees of parents (maybe they are but like five or six times removed). The PTA usually has a lot more influence on school policies than congress.

>>82882 >Wouldn't there have to be limits to how far they can dissent? Its limited by low performance remaining a firing cause. Since they are forced to teach the given curriculum you would at worst get a teacher say nonsense they believe in in parallel to existing curriculum. And you need to allow nonsense because truth is defined by media & state. If you limit speech to truth then they will call your history lesson a lie and ban you thereby.

"rights" are a spook just as much as authority is a spook. You can always speak freely as long as you're aware of the consequences.

>>82903 Ok, so you are fine with the teacher teaching that the earth is flat and the moon landing is fake. What about one who wants to teach ancient greek history with a heavy emphasis on a pro-pedophilia agenda? What about one who teaches some equivalent of that cool crystals but secretly instructions for manufacturing and breathing in mustard gas infographic, where their misinformation is directly leading to dangerous actions? What about one that is part of a suicide/murder cult and teaches the dogma of that cult?

>>82903 > truth is defined by media & state false. "truth" is defined by media & state, but they are beholden to the truth just as much as anyone else. You are right though, for instance a typical economics curriculum is full of completely unsubstantiated garbage. >>82914 I had a teacher who would start every class with 5-15 minutes where he would try to convince us that the 9-11 attacks were staged. I have no idea if it was his real belief (I think it was) but I learned more rhetoric from him than the rest of school combined. >>82907 Spooks spooks spooks, none of you are free from spooks!

>>82897 >The PTA usually has a lot more influence on school policies than congress. ptas have mostly the busybodiest 8% of parents >receiving a portion of your income from the federal government != completely depending on the federal government. thats true but people love money and hate to see it go away lol. this is why wisconsin and texas and probably some other states have such high drinking ages; fedgov threatened to take away road funding. Obviously they could still pay for roads, if they wanted too, and keep the age lower... >usually part of a local municipality technically sure whatever but to a large degree they are governed by the stategov which gives out money and standardized tests and laws about who can be a teacher and such things. Perhaps the fact that they're still governed by these orgs even if not directly hired by them is proof my suggestion is stupid, so I'll offer a refined version: teachers should be directly paid and regulated by individual parents. >>82907 I am the spook. Boo!

>>82921 >so I'll offer a refined version: teachers should be directly paid and regulated by individual parents. That is great except that most parents will never pay for a teacher, or even a private school, mostly because they can't afford it. The underclass wouldn't even be able to read or write (I mean, the problem would be even worse than it already is...), surely a detriment to everyone. There is also the matter that for most parents, the function of school is to act as a glorified daycare while they go work their three part-time jobs.

>>82914 >Ok, so you are fine with the teacher teaching that the earth is flat and the moon landing is fake. Predictable hot takes that are simply irrelevant for real world. Nothing changes whether someone think moon landing was fake or not. >What about one that is part of a suicide/murder cult and teaches the dogma of that cult? Your current school system does that already. You not noticing is just another example what lack of opposition does. Your present normal state is not even questioned in its validity.

>>82897 >The PTA usually has a lot more influence on school policies than congress. Whoever has the power to grant and withhold money is the one in charge. In a private school that would be the parents. In a public school that's the state bureaucracy. >inb4 muh democracy You don't vote for the bureaucracy you vote for a man in a suit who abuses his power to sell favors for a few years and then kicks the can to the next guy. >>82923 >That is great except that most parents will never pay for a teacher, or even a private school, mostly because they can't afford it. The only reason private schools are expensive is because there is little demand. Most people don't want to pay for the same thing twice. If there were no state run schools and taxes were lowered accordingly then the market would adapt to the new demand very easily. Schools would be like barber shops with options and prices to match every budget. >>82928 >Predictable hot takes that are simply irrelevant for real world. It does signal how oversocialized and compliant they are. Somebody who gets angry because you said the moon landing might be fake is exactly the type of person who will sell you out to the SS just to get a pat on the head.

>>82923 >public school is the only reason the underclass can read >public school is basically glorified daycare Pick one; it can't be both.

>>82963 His phrasing does not imply a contradiction. The otherwise illiterate underclass can be a minority, and hence not represented well in the "most people" for whom it is daycare.

>>82918 >I had a teacher who would start every class with 5-15 minutes where he would try to convince us that the 9-11 attacks were staged. I have no idea if it was his real belief (I think it was) but I learned more rhetoric from him than the rest of school combined. I guess I can see how there could be value in that. Still, that's not exactly an argument for a legal right to teach literally anything if you happen to have been hired as a teacher. Such an argument made honestly would need to defend literally the worst possible thing to teach, whatever it may be, and it could theoretically get absurdly bad.

>>82966 maybe that would be illiterate underclass minority doesn't need to be literate and the cost of trying to force them to obtain literacy with marginal success does more harm than its worth

>>82962 >The only reason private schools are expensive is because there is little demand. No, there is huge demand for private schools in many areas. Where I live anyone that can afford it sends their kid to private school because the public schools are extremely bad. They're *still* quite expensive, probably over 100 times more expensive to the average family than the corresponding taxes for school. Most people aren't paying $30k/year for public school. Even if we accepted that there is currently low demand, your claim that higher demand lowers prices is not even econ 101 levels of absurdity, it's just counter to basic common sense. >>82963 Why not? The fact that kids are taught a few skills while at daycare is a nice bonus, and one that most people are happy with. >>82969 Yeah and he wasn't doing the usual teacher thing where they say "I know what's true and you don't, sit down and shut up". He wanted us to argue with him. I just thought it was an interesting tidbit/corner case. >>82970 Universal literacy is definitely a good thing no matter how you look at it. You want your industrial serfs to be able to read an instruction manual.

>>82843 >3. freedom of speech, with the exception of speaking against equal legal rights (so no advocation of white supremacy, monarchy, etc.) so you don't support freedom of speech?

>>83109 Not that Lain but freezepeach for the few isnt free speech either. You have to draw the line at trying to take liberty and freedom away from people otherwise it becomes more difficult to maintain what level there even is if completely unhindered. It sounds a little ironic but that is how it works in reality. You cant have any liberty without limits on how much freedom. You cant have people free to kill without it infringing on your right to live. Having a mild privately spoken opinion is one thing but public speaking in a propogandic manner is another. You also should be held accountable for spreading lies about people particularly if publicly in such a way you completely defame them like someone going to Twitter and falsely telling everyone they were raped by so and so and give doxxing information.

I woke up yesterday morning to my alarm, read this thread, and fell back asleep since I've been sleep deprived. I had the most intense dream. I had a dream that I had woken, and had walked all the way to the city to go to my uni class, but was disrupted by an anti-free-speech rally. I was quite ticked off. I kept seeing this guys face everywhere, he looked like if Klaus Schwab was younger, scruffy, and had hair. I had wandered into a game shop with nobody in there, except in my field of view, that man appeared. Why was he here? I knew I had my chance to make a difference. With sudden strength, I tipped a shelf onto him, but he slipped away. I chased after him through the mall trying to bash him. It was drawn out chase, but eventually I tripped him and beat him. I left him there. I walked outside. As I walked down a road surrounded by fields, under a pleasantly warm sun and sky, I thought of the fact that I've just ruined my life forever. I will never even get the chance to have a career, and I've lost my lover and the children we were supposed to have one day. Absentmindedly walking, I hardly notice I've come to my class building. It was in the shape of a tall castle. I walked in, and it was a massive royally-themed hall; I failed to notice atop some stairs, police waiting. One took off my hat and glasses, saying these were the same ones the perpetrator of a violent crime. He questioned me, where was I just now, what am I doing here, and such. Then he asks, "Do you drive a green Holden?" "Nah, I don't have a car," so he let me go; I knew once they figure that the suspect didn't drive such a car, I would be on the chopping block. They knew me now. I walked through the small class halls, which were strangely medical-looking and bright. I found my class long while and entered. Everybody was in there, crowded around a television, displaying CCTV of me in the shop and mall beating the man, and then they announced that the leader of the anti free-speech rally had just passed away. Everybody was mournful, a girl started to cry, sad that the champion of their cause was dead. I suddenly felt uneasy, exposed, sure they'll recognize me. I felt disgusted about the cause they cry for. I left the classroom then and there, to wander around and enjoy the final scrap of freedom on this Earth. I then departed the dream world.

>>82970 This argument also holds true that since people don't want to take responsibility for their actions, having a king or dictator is better, because then all decisions are by the order of the king/dictator. Why would you need literacy or freedoms if you can't handle the responsibility to use them? Why allow people to speak their minds if they have nothing constructive to say and will only use it to complain about how they are a victim?

>>82795 In America free speech exists as a basic right within any public space, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to private spaces. I’d argue perhaps the reverse might not be a better solution, and what the “truth” is should be defined by whatever the greatest minds in our society. The fact that throughout most of human history we’ve spent our time creating a pyramid scheme with a fat, lazy idiot at the top what we model the average society over sounds stupid with the resources and knowledge we have today—in many ways I feel like it’s a relic of a time when agriculture was in its infancy and the strongest brutes reined supreme, I feel like our species’ next step is to move away from this.

>>83273 You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. We live in the age of websites and free public libraries, of little free libraries and free distribution newspapers, of second hand book stores and household printers. Written language is cheaper and more ubiquitous than ever, not to mention highly useful. If, in this environment an individual does not learn to read by himself, and nor is he taught to read by his parents, then I think we ought to consider whether the family is infact composed of humans. >>83275 Ive been trying to figure out if its quite true as he says, but there's a fellow who quite recently was arrested in Wisconsin under claim of disorderly conduct, for in speaking to someone telling them they were acting like a nigger. Public space, arrested by police, not trespassing or anything like that.

>>82796 This is not a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. You break the social contract and there will be repercussions.

>>83361 The problem is they equate taboo speech worse than action. Its a paradox for people with fuarrrked values.

>>82809 well that only means that that guy is telling the truth.

all of this discourse is nonsense. People talking high and mighty about truth, misinformation and society as if they know anything about any of it. the point here is that there is an attempt at establishing a system where in it will be required to be able to identify anyone on the internet so that you can jail him. And you cant jail an anonymous person... this poses a direct threat to all anonymous platforms... what do we do?

>>83963 Anonymity is already pretty much impossible for normal users due trackers implemented in both software & hardware. i.e. ipv6 has buildin identifiers. The lowtech solution is trivial however - you simply use someone elses tech and post under false id. Anonymity is however not the problem. The truth is online but the public doesnt know because they all sit in walled gardens that censor wrong think.

dude lainy it is really important to have specificly the American Constitution version of free speech the European model permits "most speech" except when it "interferes with a ""working democracy""" so that's obviously, you could interpret that any way, free pass for gov'na to jail dissidents which we are seeing right now the UK arresting people for facebook posts, even retweets that's why in the corrupted liberal institution of higher-education they constantly push students to be anti-american, "i won't tolerate hate speech" but you're actually allowed to say "hate speech", and people forget that its not even that the government "allows" you to, but that you are *protected from* the government limiting free speech the right to free speech means protecting the other guy you don't like as well by routing communication onto these private company's servers basically, that aren't technicly a 'publishing platform', they circumvent the law the globalist trillionares want all communications censored but there are these pesky americans with their 'recognized inalienable rights' that are the last hinderance to that

>>83971 us const version of freeze peach is only in effect to the extent that the people in power want it to be and it is not entierly in power. u do get prosecuted for memes on twitter here, too, to a lesser extent than uk but still. its argued weirdly to get around the judges who still care because some of them do. also look at aleks jones lol but hes not alone by any stretch and more minor people get peaches confiscated, too what matters is will+power, letter of the law is just statement of intent+orders from master to servants, in case of us const it is the intent of a bunch of dead guys and what matters is what their successors after a fashion want to do, which is seperate matter fwiw us const as originally written (plus bill'o'rights) is entierly different even from US const as it stands to day, especially post bellum civile. original us const was fairly weak in defense of frozen peaches simply saying CONGRESS shall make no law to such effect, explicitly leaving open for individual states to do so. contrast with 2a's right of the people to x SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED