[SonicTheSith]

> I think this is dangerous thinking, lies are bad but censorship is worse because someone has to decide what is a lie and what isn't, and that quickly becomes politicised.

Thing is first step would be to teach people again critical thinking and what the difference is between objective facts and opinions. Furthermore, something I am missing in this discussion and in general is that the concept of responsibility is lost. Sure you are allowed to say anything you like, but that does not mean there are no consequences.

In the analog world we have libel laws and some limitations on speech ( incite violence, endanger others ). For example in Germany it is straight up illegal to deny the holocaust. We as a society have decided that this is the correct decision for that instance to ensure that it won't repeat itself in some form or another in the future.

Other 'speech' laws in germany make verbally insulting others fineable, because human dignity is the fundamental principle of the German constitution. Article 1, paragraph 1 reads: "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority." Human dignity is thus mentioned even before the right to life.

Anyways what I am trying to say is that just as in chemistry actions will have reactions. Therefore, speech should have consequences. Ironically, republicans have preached over the years that everybody should be responsible for themselves and their actions, and not rely on others but when it is about consequences of speech they are silent.

[simonh]

Oh sure, education has a vital role. It always bemuses me how bad education and health care seem to be in the US. It's like a left winger's parody of how bad these things would be in a capitalist system, except they really are like that. It's the main reason I fully support the public systems here in the UK even though I'm a full blooded capitalist and life long Conservative voter. If it ain't broke...