Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Flame87 t1_ivb454y wrote

"It's oppression to remove my lying"

Another day, another comment section full of conservatives complaining about their free speech to

  1. Promote lies

  2. Promote Violence

  3. Commit fraud

  4. Share CP

14

Quartz_Splinter t1_ivbkegp wrote

Disimformation is literally the price you pay for free speech. You cant have one without the other. I would take the disimformation for the right to have free speech over not having free speech at all. Y'all act like disimformation will just vanish if people dont have free speech anymore. Pull your head out of your fucking ass and look at the long term reality of your decisions.

12

Flame87 t1_ivbldm7 wrote

Another day another "The real fascists are the fascists who won't let us fascist"

3

BuzzBadpants t1_ivbmfql wrote

I’m tired of people claiming that disinformation is so intractable from “free speech,” and that somehow means that it is inherently valuable.

Disinformation has net negative value. We’ve placed limits on “free speech” such that hate speech and speech that gets people killed is actually illegal in the US. I have yet to see anyone make any claim as to why disinformation should be protected speech.

And before everyone comes in with the predictable “who decides what’s disinformation” nonsense, the answer is a judge. Literally what their job is and has been for over 200 years.

1

svs940a t1_ivbsqh9 wrote

Hate speech isn’t an exception to the first amendment

11

BuzzBadpants t1_ivc3m8h wrote

It’s a legal exception to completely unfettered speech, which conservatives seem to believe is what the first amendment means.

−1

SlickJamesBitch t1_ivbtyec wrote

If there was a perfect authority that could remove untrue information I would pro censorship, I just defend free-speech because I don’t trust a source to determine what is right and wrong info with out society rife with political corruption. Just look at how the leftist freaking out about the possibility of Elon censoring their speech.

There’s clear negatives to free speech like people believing ridiculous conspiracies, but I’d much rather have that than to be in a society with top down authoritarianism.

6

sockpastarock t1_ive4oec wrote

There's a flaw in this classic "arbiter of truth" argument. We shouldn't ask "who" can we trust as the arbiter of truth - the answer is we cannot trust anyone with that responsibility. Instead we should ask "what" can we trust?

It's an epistemic question and we have already developed good ways of dealing with it as a species. Look at the scientific method which fundamentally relies on the principle of falsifiability to seek truth. Free speech would ideally rely on the same principle if we consider it useful for the purpose of leading us toward truth. If the speech in question is unfalsifiable or is falsified then it shouldn't be considered as protected speech. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's automatically censored, but that if this speech is challenged for censorship then free speech alone would not be an adequate defence against censorship. There may be other defences for it - for example, we still publish scientific papers which falsify their own hypothesis but we wouldn't keep publishing the same falsified hypothesis repeatedly unless there is new information to bring it back into question in a way which is falsifiable. It's pretty simple and it has already been proven to operate exceedingly well as a method of truth arbitration as demonstrated by its utility with the rapid acceleration of modern science.

1

DBDude t1_ivc8pqe wrote

The left isn’t scared of Musk censoring their speech. They’re scared he’ll stop censoring speech they don’t like so their ideas will have to survive on a level playing field.

−2

Flame87 t1_ivbua91 wrote

Defending "You kicked off our criminally delicensed doctor so we're banning every legitimate media outlet as decided exclusively by our party" isn't the "we aren't fascists" flex you think it is.

−6

Stellen999 t1_ivb5rm9 wrote

Yeah, because the government hasn't suppressed information that was later proven to be true. Idiots like you actually believe that things you agree with will never be targeted because you're the good guys, but it's only a matter of time.

​

Aside from all of that, the biden administration has been so deceitful lately that CNN actually wrote a piece calling them out on all of the blatant lies.

−14

Flame87 t1_ivb6618 wrote

CNN is right wing now too and nobody watches it in the first place except Republicans looking for more buzz words to screech about.

Meanwhile here you are arguing lying, violence, fraud, and CP are protected political speech.

6

Stellen999 t1_ivb8ut3 wrote

No one is arguing that Child porn is free speech, you're just doing a very poor strawman. By the way, you might want to ask yourself why you type about child porn so much you have to use a 2 character abbreviation.

−7

Flame87 t1_ivb9fff wrote

I know why, because Republicans get caught fucking kids or watching CP literally twice a fucking month.

Maybe ask yourself why you you support a party that has a deep seated obsession with it.

13