[jpdb]

> Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker.

I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it.

> That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed.

I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it.

> If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment?

(I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me)

I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence.

> Censoring goes both ways.

Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"

[irjustin]

> I think you mixed your words up here.

Yea, you're right, but thanks for getting the spirit.

> Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist.

That's your belief because "legitimate opinions". What is "legitimate opinions"? That is the crux.

Your sense of justice is driving your opinions. Someone else's is going to be slightly different. Okay that's obvious, but the high level is how do you decide what is right/wrong? It's a spectrum, a very wide and diverse one. What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?

> I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence.

FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas. You can have a net-surplus of "good done" via censorship. But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?

All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.

[jpdb]

> That's your belief because "legitimate opinions". What is "legitimate opinions"? That is the crux.

I'd say this was a poor choice of words. All opinions are "legitimate" in that people actually hold them and believe in them.

> What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?

I don't think this is hard to measure, especially since we already have tests for what is protected speech and what is not in the US. For instance, we have federal laws that stop employers or landlords from exercizing their right to free speech when it involves discrimination against certain protected classes of people. Or slander/libel, or inciting violence.

> FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas.

This is not the case, as explained above and in an earlier comment. In the US we already have laws that limit free speech, yet result in a more free society.

> But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?

Yes, both of these things are good and would be considered good under just about any normative ethical framework.

> All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.

I agree with this fully, and would condemn anyone using censorship to remove free speech that isn't harmful. I advocate for similar positions in that I am generally ok with the government jailing people (which is an act of violence) that commit crimes. The right to jail people is an even more powerful tool than censorship, but most people are ok with this being done.

[joshuamorton]

> You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring

Of course you can. The government banning a platform from moderating content is a form of government censorship. Yet you believe that this would lead to more free speech.

Either a platform moderating is more free speech, or not moderating is more free speech. In either case, someone is being censored. So some form of censorship leads to more free speech.

[Natsu]

Here's a noted first amendment expert explaining why "fire in a crowded theater" is a very bad example to cite:

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

[jpdb]

Interesting article! I'll try to pay more mind in the future. That said,

> First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute.

Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.

[Natsu]

> Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.

Sure, but that's not a useful thing to know. I recall when Ken compared saying that to something akin to the following conversation, which I'm reconstructing from memory:

Help! I've been bitten by a snake and I want to know if it's poisonous!

Unless you're eating the snake, it only matters if the snake is venomous.

Okay, so can you tell me if the snake is venomous then?

Not all snakes are venomous.

So the important point is not to dispute over whether any speech can be banned, but whether the speech in question fits one of the categories of unprotected speech:

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