|
|
|
|
|
by phs318u
2188 days ago
|
|
History? i.e. track record of prior harm by type of speech? If similar content has demonstrably caused harm before, then chances are high decent it's likely to cause harm again. ASIDE:
It occurs to me that the kinds of discussions being had in the modern era, have their counterparts from earlier times. The arguments for and against the freedom to publish holocaust denialism has strong parallels to today's disagreements around freedom of speech, though they clearly predate social media networks. Interestingly, though global approaches to holocaust denialism (in the west) range from strong disapproval to outright bans, the strain of thought has continued to survive, albeit in far lower numbers. Would those numbers be vastly different in a world where those ideas were more freely permitted to flourish? |
|