Several of the BRICS (& other "global south" / non-neoliberal / non-western) countries also imprison journalists and nonviolent political opposition groups, and some even have the death penalty for minor cannabis possession. "Everyone else does things this way" isn't a legitimate justification.

▲

fc417fc802 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

A justification of what, though? It isn't a cohesive argument on it's own but it is important perspective. If a significant fraction of societies have arrived at policies that contradict your worldview I think that ought to give you pause. (Note that I say that as someone who holds far more extreme views about legal freedom of expression than the vast majority of people out there.)

That's getting somewhat off topic though. In the context of this thread it's merely the observation that attributing this to "puritans" or "christianity" or "US history" is rather misguided. The US and western Europe are very much the outliers here.

▲

anonym29 7 days ago | parent [-]

Are you defending the morality of authoritarian states imprisoning journalists and nonviolent political opposition groups?

It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable.

To be clear, I'm not accusing you of promoting these practices, just asking you to clarify your position.

▲

fc417fc802 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

I am expressing neither support nor opposition to any particular policy position in that comment, merely putting forth the general principle that any time you find yourself to be an outlier you should very carefully examine how that came to be. It's a natural extension of Chesterton's fence.

I think it also follows from such a principle that in general the relevant reasoning should be explicitly articulated when discussing the topic.

> It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable.

Suppose that a thing is explicitly chosen by the majority of the world's population, or dictated by the majority of governments, or imposed by the majority of cultural norms. I am suggesting that dismissing it in favor of your own reasoning is fine, but that doing so lightly is arrogant and misguided.

	▲	anonym29 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		What gives you the impression that I might be offering my critiques lightly or arrogantly, as opposed to only after arriving at them through extensive, careful, and deliberate thought? Humans engaged in tribalistic groupthink committing moral atrocities is a tale as old as time. It is never wise to accept a majority or status quo position reflexively without thoroughly interrogating the ideas held within. A great deal of majority positions are morally reprehensible and ethically indefensible, and that has always been the case throughout human history. Human sacrifices of the innocent were not a "different culture", they were barbaric murders that were always wrong. They were also normative in much of the world for much of human history. The values espoused (but not always upheld) by western societies that many of us take for granted today are the exception to the rules throughout human history - rules that promoted needless bloodshed, widespread suffering, and persecution of the innocent. It is not arrogant to assert that loss of innocent human life is reprehensible and the societies that normalize it should be condemned. To assert otherwise isn't simply innocuously defending pluralism, it's defending atrocities. All life is inherently valuable and I will not apologize for asserting that, no matter how many billions of people disagree for tribalistic, persecutory reasons.

▲

7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

MSFT_Edging 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not to whatabout but the US isn't free from punishing journalists.

See the Steven Donziger[1] case. It was just done more Americanly. Private corporation threw their full weight at a lawyer defending an indigenous population who had their water supply poisoned. Chevron hired a private prosecutor who had him locked up on house arrest for years.

Similar to this porn case, the censorship and suppression is coming from market interests rather than government, but they're nearly equally untouchable and even more difficult to hold accountable. You can't vote out the leadership of mastercard or chevron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger

▲

pyuser583 7 days ago | parent [-]

Steven Donziger isn’t a journalist. He was a lawyer who was suing Chevron.

I’ve been following the case closely. This is the first time anybody has claimed he’s a journalist, AFAIK.

Am I missing something?

Edit: according to Wikipedia he worked as a journalist for three years before attending law school. So I guess he’s an ex-journalist, and ex-lawyer for that matter.

But calling the persecution of journalists is false. Maybe persecution of environmental lawyers, but lawyers, unlike journalists, are heavily regulated, and face much higher liability for bad acts.

	▲	MSFT_Edging 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> threw their full weight at a lawyer I used Steven as an example if private prosecution, where a private organization can take away your freedom outside of public prosecutors. Steven did similar work to an investigative journalist at a high level, he brought attention to, and fought for a marginalized group. He did it through the court system rather than through publication. Despite doing it legally. I don't see much of a difference. As recent times have shown, much of the legal system(and legal protections) depend on someone enforcing. Without that, there's little difference between the government boot and the corpo boot.