[astorgard]

> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way.

Just for the purpose of debating let me bring up my (very unpopular) point of view.

I have always thought that anyone should be able to say anything and not have legal consequences (ex: go to prison, pay a fine).

Notice that this statement covers all scenarios as long as the person involved "only speaks" (or publishes). In other words, the moment he does something illegal, then he should (in my opinion) be judged according to the rules of the society he lives in.

Now... I have never in my live encountered one single person that agrees 100% with me in that regard. They always come up with exceptions, such as these ones:

1) An author writes a book about having sex with minors.

2) A general tells one of his soldiers to shoot a prisoner.

3) My neighbor starts publishing ads on the local newspaper falsely accusing me of being a drug dealer.

These are my responses:

1) As long as we don't catch him having sex with minors, that's ok with me. We should encourage all types of debates, even those (specially those!) we are not comfortable with. In the worst case, each one will walk home thinking the other side is wrong; in the best case, maybe we will learn something from each other (maybe we can better understand how the brain of that author works and how we can help him). Simply banning a taboo topic won't make it disappear from society... openly discussing the topic will (in my opinion) be a better long term solution for all.

2) In this case the general is not just "saying" something. Due to the chain of command, the soldier can end up imprisoned or dead if he doesn't comply. I would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise.

3) This is the most tricky one. I still think my neighbor should be able to do that because I expect others who read the newspaper ad to fact check his claims instead of blindly believe them. No one I have ever met agrees with me on this one... and I think that is because people always consider others to be "dumber" than themselves and thus need to be protected from non curated news in case they end up believing them. I really think this is not the case: I never believe anything I read on the newspaper (or online) until I get confirmation from several places and I know most people do the same, no matter how others like to "look down" at "average Joe".

I enjoy discussing the limits of "freedom of speech/ideas". Let me know what you (or any other) think :)

[buisi]

While your idea has some merit, there is a distinction to be made between writing a book about completely fictional scenarios involving sex with minors, and advocating sex with minors (telling people that it is fine in a piece of advocacy like on a blog).

People sometimes get these two confused, but they're not the same thing.

Someone can easily construct a fantasy world where doing that might be fine / unharmful (or in scenarios where it is harmful, it is clear to the reader that it is bad to act on), yet believe it is harmful in reality.

Between the covers of a book is another universe. In a way, imagine someone is transported to another planet which resembles your own.

There is also indeed the distinction between advocating for something and doing it. To pick a less charged example, I advocate for the legalization of most drugs (although, it doesn't mean I would support irresponsible use, much like how I wouldn't support drink driving). This doesn't necessarily mean I am secretly consuming cocaine, heroin, LSD, and all manner of other illicit drugs.

Another thing is that there is a difference between someone giving their opinions on the matter, and actively inciting someone to do it. If someone specifically instructs the reader to go out and do it, that is clearly very bad. But, I've never heard of such a thing happening, and if it did, it is more likely to be an internet troll. It is too damaging of an act.

I am of the opinion that text + anything which is digitally created is fine. Nothing which goes back to a specific abuse, although there are occasions where the victim of child abuse will chronicle their abuse in text, and I think they should be free to do so. There is also the case in Canada where someone did a retelling of an old story (IIRC Hansel and Gretel) which was more faithful to the original.

In practice, I imagine it would be quite ruinous to publish books which cover such themes under your own name, and it would be advised to use some sort of pen name.

[ofrzeta]

I think the limits will certainly come down to the consequences the "words" bring with them. Without them the discussion is quite theoretical. You can safely say "everything is allowed" and then defer to another ontological realm where you cleanly separate the actions from the words.

However if someone in reality would start to smear you and especially other people like your wife or daughter with some verbal shit so they would have to suffer from it the limits of freedom of speech would look different.

[sofixa]

> would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise

I think that's incredibly naive and doesn't actually work in the world we live in. Take a look at any of the genocides of the last century, with people on one side saying "we should kill all X", people saying "no, X are fine people", and sometimes the first type of people winning and going full genocide.

FFS it happened as recently as last year in Myanmar about mass misinformation against Rohingyas, which escalated to a genocide.

What then? When the "explaining" doesn't work, do you wait for the actions to start ( taking in mind that usually when a mass amount of people start genociding another people, you can't just easily stop it)? Then, in a way, aren't you complicit in that genocide because you could have acted before but chose to just talk? That's what the Germans settled on post-WWII, that they were all complicit for allowing the Nazis to get so far ( and talking obviously got them nowhere).

[astorgard]

Saying (as I do) that everyone should be able to express their ideas (no matter how atrocious) publicly without facing administrative punishment does *not* mean that other actions (such as keeping a close eye on them) should not be taken.

I doubt that preventing the Nazis from discussing their ideas would have stopped them. Having their ideas not suppressed from public forums at least gave the chance to others to understand what was going on in order to try to stop it (which, in this case, failed miserably).

When "explaining doesn't work" it's time to take action. But not while the only proof you have against someone is what he said (instead of what he did).

The "brain washing" power that continuous propaganda has is not under question, but still I like to hold accountable those who do, and not those who say (I know this is a very unpopular opinion, that's why I like to discuss about it!).

[sofixa]

If i may respond with two quotes from the Nazi Propaganda minister:

"To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realised as being true, that is called propaganda. In the beginning there is the understanding, this understanding uses propaganda as a tool to find those men, that shall turn understanding into politics. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things from what I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. Those are found in other circumstances, I find them when thinking at my desk, but not in the meeting hall. Speech on 9 January 1928 to an audience of party members at the "Hochschule für Politik", a series of training talks for Nazi party members in Berlin

We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem... We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we. Why Do We Want to Join the Reichstag? Der Angriff, 30 April 1928"

He seems to have been of the opinion that giving them a platform to voice their hatred even louder was beneficial for them.

Is saying things not an action? Especially when the things being said are of the genocidal-wannabe kind?

[astorgard]

Thinking that "people are easy to manipulate, thus we must prevent lies from spreading to protect society" is too paternalist and (in my limited experience) does not reflect reality.

You are right in that propaganda is a very powerful weapon (I openly admitted that on my previous comment) but, then again, we are all adults that should be able to navigate the ocean of misinformation to find out what is true in order to form our own opinions.

Having all the Nazi propaganda available today is an invaluable tool to prevent it from happening in the future... while not having allowed it in the first place would probably not have prevented WW2 (or maybe it would, we don't know for sure).

As you say (and this might be a bit far fetched, but bear with me) in this instance, voicing their hatred was beneficial *for them*, *at that time*, but not for "genocides in general", as now (thanks to how public their whole ideology became) we have data to fight it, were something similar to happen in the future.

[sofixa]

> Thinking that "people are easy to manipulate, thus we must prevent lies from spreading to protect society" is too paternalist and (in my limited experience) does not reflect reality

If the last few years have proven anything, it's that people are far too easy to manipulate. Otherwise we wouldn't have successful political campaigns built on outright lies.

I honestly don't have a solution for that - i don't think there's a way to filter information so that individuals susceptible to misinformation don't get anything but truth ( actual facts, not whoever's in charge today's version of it), but i also think that it's the only way to have a fully functional society ( i don't think that a society that believes the Nigel Farages, Marine Le Pens, Donald Trumps and Jair Bolsonaros of the world is functional, it's really trivial to see through their shit and lies, yet far too many people don't).

> You are right in that propaganda is a very powerful weapon (I openly admitted that on my previous comment) but, then again, we are all adults that should be able to navigate the ocean of misinformation to find out what is true in order to form our own opinions

Ideally, yes, we should, but sadly not everybody does.

> Having all the Nazi propaganda available today is an invaluable tool to prevent it from happening in the future

In theory, but in practice most people have very vague notions of WW2, often with plenty of misinformation sprinkled in ( e.g. Holocaust deniers, people thinking the US won the war singlehandedly, people who deny there were collaborators, etc.). I absolutely think that had Nazi propaganda been limited, they wouldn't have gotten as successful. It took years of Nazi propaganda in people's homes for mass deportations and mass murder to become somewhat acceptable.

>As you say (and this might be a bit far fetched, but bear with me) in this instance, voicing their hatred was beneficial for them, at that time, but not for "genocides in general", as now (thanks to how public their whole ideology became) we have data to fight it, were something similar to happen in the future

Plenty of people have taken pages of the Nazi handbook on dehumanising, violence, exploiting democracy and freedom to sow discord, and i really don't think it has helped - if anything, the comparisons to Nazis are usually portaid as overexagerations.

[astorgard]

After re-reading this whole thread I think I now know *why* we disagree: our level of "pragmatism" (or maybe "time scale") is different :)

You favor limiting the spread of misinformation today to prevent major issues *now* (because, as you pointed out, it has been demonstrated that people can be manipulated).

I favor open access to all type of information (even factually incorrect one) to prevent censorship and make it impossible for any particular government or group to control what citizens have access to (who decides what is good? Maybe, in 500 years, the "world government" decides that people with green eyes must be exterminated and that any opposing voice must be silenced).

You want results "now" and I aim for results in the "next hundred years".

But I can perfectly understand your point of view as other popular questions can also be reduced to a similar disjunctive (ex: "should our generation give up some commodities to leave a better world to our grand-children?").

It's a difficult question... and I think it is safe to say that it's OK for us to agree that we disagree :)

[buisi]

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/20/is-the-traditional-aclu-...

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/14/the-aclu-would-not-...

> Indeed, Weimar Germany had on statute what we would today call hate-speech laws, and Nazi propagandists like Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher were prosecuted for their vicious libels of Jews. In turn, they used the attention to promote their cause and pose as martyrs.

I recommend reading these articles on free speech.

[david38]

This is why fiction / fantasy writings of any kind should be allowed.

[YarickR2]

I agree with you on all points. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom of thought. Actions should be punishable, words shouldn't

[astorgard]

You are literally the first person I find who agrees with me. Hi there! :)

Just for the shake of discussion, let me put on the table some other extreme examples people bring up:

A) Apology of "something bad" (for example, "apology of terrorism"). Is it OK for someone to appear on TV and say that he is happy about all the people killed in 11-S and that others should repeat the attack?

B) Targeted attack. Back to the neighbor example: would it be OK if he not only published a newspaper ad against me every day but also appeared on TV shows, sent propaganda to other neighbors, hired a plane to draw my name on the sky, etc...?

C) Dangerous information. Example: someone discovers that by mixing two very easy to find (and accessible to everyone) chemicals, the whole atmosphere of the earth would be modified in hours in a way that all people from ethnicity X would immediately die. Is it OK for him to publish this information?

I still think all these cases are covered... but I would like to know how others reason about them :)

[shaan7]

> You are literally the first person I find who agrees with me. Hi there! :)

And I'd like to say the same to both of you! I wonder why the idea is not more popular though :(