| >You think murder sentencing can be "fair" and "consistent", but censorship can only be "unfair" and "inconsistent". I think that murder sentencing can be fair. It's not, but murder is not something that should go unpunished either way. I think censorship is not and has never been fair. Not only that, historically the point has been the opposite: to oppress. I think "well-intentioned censorship" like you propose is so easy to pervert that it's worse than nothing. >We've already been over this. And we're going over it again because the first time around you apparently found my viewpoint incomprehensible. >I am not a moral relativist or moral nihilist. I will advocate to ban strings of words that have a non-trivial probability of causing stochastic terrorism or genocide But you're not alone in the world. While you're happy to have those strings banned and none others, other people will want to use the same systems that were put in place in order to ban strings, to ban some strings that you may not care about one way or another, and others that you think should not be banned. >by the same logic that we choose to ban direct calls to violence I don't think calls to commit crime need to be banned. I don't think shouting fire in a crowded theater need to be banned. It's one each person to act accordingly in each situation, and not be moved to action by the first idiot who says something stupid. If the justification for censorship of ideas is censorship of calls to violence, I'm fine with having none. But see what I mean? If I tell you "I'm not opposed to banning calls to violence" I'm opening the door for you to come back with "well, then what about these other strings that have similar effects?" Do you not see how the same can be done to you? >This isn't relevant. It is relevant. Unlike crime, which most people at most rarely feel like committing, almost everyone has an opinion that someone else would find objectionable and would rather they didn't voice. |