| > And who gets to decide who gets none? For example you look at the history and look whether something was more helpful than harmful (eg: fascist propaganda)
or you look at the science and look whether something is a real theory or barely an hypothesis whose flaws are well-documented. Basically, instead of saying "GOP says it's raining and Democrats says the weather is nice", you look at the facts and open your window. > That would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (...) become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy.
Meanwhile, fascist propaganda has been proven to do huge damage on this very planet of Earth. Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'. In the US it seems to mean: 'I must be free to do everything including harming people. If I can't harm others, I'm not really free' I don't believe that many people believes seriously in 'free' speech absolutism. Are you for abolishing libel laws? Prohibiting non-disclosure agreement? Because they hinder practical free speech more than hate speech laws. |
It does huh? When I was growing up, I'd chance upon some people with thoroughly unpleasant opinions. Everyone in the neighborhood knew about them. Everyone ignored them. Nowadays, you've got mobs coordinating amongst one another to inflict harm on someone over a disagreeable worldview.
So no, that it exists only in my mind is, and always will be hogwash. Once again, it takes someone principled to stare down the angry mob and say "not one step further, y'all cool it."
I'm absolutely fine with doing away with NDAs as a recognized legal instrument to be quite honest. The conscience of good men being burdened or weighed down when justice demands one speak out is one of the legal system's longest standing shames in my opinion.
Libel reflects more on the character of the Libeler than of the Libeled, and the truth is a foolproof remedy, which makes it obvious to everyone who the fool/scoundrel in the room is. If anything, one can have Libel laws utilized as a powerful tool of oppression, particularly when wielded by those with disproportionate power or means at their disposal.
That Liberty invites the possibility of poor behavior or the actual exercise of freedoms unencumbered by threat of a nebulous System is a fear I am 100% familiar with, and okay with. It's worth it. There are more people on Earth looking to place fetters on everyone else that I don't see any reason to encourage anyone to do so no matter the convenience.
>Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'.
Congratulations. You just made my point why a library is best served in stock books that it's community may not like, in the interests of creating availability for the reader that just might need it! Or why free speech absolutism is the most prudent treatment of speech! Anything less is one person treading on another's freedom.
Good of the goose, good of the gander. You don't get to silence one group, (your freedom) because (your freedom) stops where their freedom begins. You may think it's a good idea. They may be really annoying to you. But just as you get to voice your bit, they get theirs. Anything else is self-referential inconsistency, to which the punishment is beatings with an organic carrot. No exceptions.