|
|
|
|
|
|
by pjc50
3179 days ago
|
|
|
Mostly, yes America is better off, although I agree with peteretp's examples that we're seeing the worst side of "freedom to lie" and "money as speech" come to fruition. But there are all sorts of weird exceptions and the practicality of free speech has different contours. Extremely prudish but pro-violence film ratings, for example. "Ag-gag" laws (which were eventually struck down). The free speech worst case scenario is not American but Rwandan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... |
|
|
I agree that was horrendous; however why is it the worst case? The US military also funds and sponsors media, and lies to create war. Why were the Rwandan government's provocations worse than the US's? More people have died in The War on Terror. Both wars were unjust, for power and profit, and targeted specific ethnic groups.
Rwanda's genocide itself does have a particularly evil nature. I'm just trying to show that it is difficult to say which is more evil.
Free speech isn't perfect; it is just better than the alternative.
>the worst side of "freedom to lie"
There are already laws against false accusations and lying. So in theory, if someone slanders a rape-survivor group by saying they have no right to be upset, etc., because they were not raped, the accuser can be held liable for those false accusations, which is a good thing. I support free speech strongly, but I don't think people have the right to deliberately lie about individuals, groups or businesses, without consequences.