The above acts either carry no intrinsic information content and/or very few people apart of free-speech absolutists would be OK with them. They’re not evocative of the controversy at hand, and I can’t find anyone defending them.

Perhaps more appropriate:

* Instructions for making an illegal firearm

* Unpopular political opinions

* Instructions for engaging in illicit speech without detection

* Silently standing still with head bowed and hands folded in public

* Using a VPN

* Holding a sign at a protest

There are probably many more examples like the above, which would engender a more nuanced discussion.

▲

JumpCrisscross 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

> above acts either carry no intrinsic information content

This is an exercise in censorship, in a sense. So is blocking spam.

OP’s point stands. Information flow requires regulation in any society. I’ve been something of a free-speech absolutist most of my life, but I’m strongly re-thinking that after seeing Europe and America fall to what can only be described as populist stupidity.

▲

cobbzilla 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Information flow requires regulation in any society.

I agree! But where to draw the line? Your examples include crimes (distinct from whatever speech/expression) that are far beyond where anyone is saying should be allowed. This seemed a bit disingenuous to me. I was trying to engender a higher-quality discussion.

▲

awesome_dude 7 days ago | parent [-]

> But where to draw the line?

That's the thing, when you draw the line you no longer have "free" speech/expression, you only have "speech that's not considered a crime"

The examples are what society have collectively decided are forms of speech/expression (yes they are all speech/expression) that people shouldn't be free to use.

▲

cobbzilla 6 days ago | parent [-]

Again, totally agree. I don’t think anyone is advocating for anarchy or zero restrictions on speech/expression. So if we’re going to debate where to draw the line, let’s pick examples that folks could reasonably have different opinions about, versus drawing the line so far out and saying “well you’ve crossed this super far line, so anything is fair game”. Anything should not be fair game. What kinds of speech/expression should never be illegal? That is maybe a more interesting question. What conduct is never over the censorship line in your view?

▲

6 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

awesome_dude 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You're completely missing the point.

Your definition of "reasonable" is always going to be someone else's "too broad" or "too narrow", "too woke" or "too fascist". There's no escaping that.

The comment I was replying to was

> "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny...Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. Commissioner Pravin Lal, 'U.N. Declaration of Rights' "

You've spent your time since trying to define what can and cannot be spoken about - which is exactly what the original comment said was bad.

1. Who Are YOU to define what can or cannot be spoken about?

2. Why do you think that YOUR contributions are "reasonable" but someone pointing out several of the existing restrictions on "free speech" that people happily agree on isn't?

Also, FTR I thought to also include the following speech restrictions:

- Trademark infringement

- Copyright infringement

- Patent infringement

- Non Disclosure Agreements

edit: The fact of the matter is, people generally don't realise how restricted speech is in the world (regardless of where you are)

If a state wants to further censor people all they need to do is convince people that the speech category is harmful in some way or other, and boom, it's illegal.

	▲	cobbzilla 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I get your point. Ships are passing in the night here. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to successfully articulate the distinction I was trying to make such that you’d understand.

▲

DrSiemer 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can't stop online stupidity and misinformation with censorship. It would at best create an echo chamber of government supported online stupidity and misinformation.

	▲	awesome_dude 7 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Laws don't stop things, they provide a mechanism where conduct that matches what is described in the law is punished as described by that law. The hope is that the punishment proscribed by the law is enough to make people think again before breaking it, and, if the law involves depravation of liberty (jail), that people who do break it are removed from society for a limited amount of time to prevent them further transgressing. This is civics 101, honestly, anyone that's a student of history understands that laws are created because all other forms of preventing what society agrees to be bad behaviour have failed. Laws, therefore, are the last resort, because everything else has failed. Edit: I just want to add (here, because it's too late to edit my original comment) that someone /flagged/ my comment that disagreed about there being a thing where speech/information flows completely uninhibited - hilariously proving my point :-)
	▲	JumpCrisscross 7 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> You can't stop online stupidity and misinformation with censorship Shame and ostracisation handled this through antiquity. There is no evidence introducing those elements online cannot work. > would at best create an echo chamber of government supported online stupidity and misinformation But that’s what we got anyway. It’s just as clearly the case that a lack of regulation amplifies people willing to be stupid online. Taking that amplification away takes us back, per your worst case, to what we have now.
	▲	raffraffraff 7 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I mean, we already have that. And you're right. But in fact, misinformation and stupidity are already baked into the social media moderator's handbook, and the filters in their moderation tools. Disagreeing with them will get you banned in noisy online platforms.

▲

frostyel 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

awesome_dude 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The very moment that you decided you could determine what is, or isn't, information, you engaged in censorship.