9 ms·

That point of view works in a perfect world, but there are some ideas that don't deserve a seat at the table. Drinking bleach will not cure autism, but their a

That point of view works in a perfect world, but there are some ideas that don't deserve a seat at the table. Drinking bleach will not cure autism, but their are desperate parents out there ready to walk into that bear trap and opportunistic people are ready to spring it.

ohithereyou 7y ago
>there are some ideas that don't deserve a seat at the table Is it possible to enumerate the set of all ideas that cannot be expressed, and if so, how do you enumerate this set, and who has the power to determine the members of this set? Advocating that someone should have their child drink bleach to cure their autism is a despicable act, and is likely criminal after the fact, but that's the difference here - it's criminal after someone takes action on it. Quoting Justice Brandeis from Whitney v. California: >Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. [...] If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  They should still be allowed to be seen but should be heavily caveatted as NOT TRUE if we know they aren't. Another good one is the reporting on vaccines causing autism, but we all know vaccines save millions of lives.
  - dfsDfass123124 7y ago
    Twitter obviously should be the ones to determine what is true and false.
  - prepend 7y ago
    I can’t think of any entity whose NOT TRUE label would mean anything to me. And I think that I try to understand topics. I can’t imagine the flack that would come when some robot labels trans people’s gender identity as NOT TRUE based on biological grounds. I think that any group labeling things TRUE and NOT TRUE will only make things worse.
tux1968 7y ago
> there are some ideas that don't deserve a seat at the table. If you don't like an idea you're free to ignore it. Freedom of speech is really about the freedom for each of us to hear. What you're really advocating is that you don't want other people to have access to ideas with which you personally disapprove. This is such an authoritarian notion that I don't understand how it has become a socially acceptable idea to espouse.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > I don't understand how it has become a socially acceptable idea to espouse. We got fed up of people being murdered because they're black, Jewish, gay, trans, female, etc etc.
  - tux1968 7y ago
    Yeah, suppressing free speech is NOT going to help with any of those tragedies. In fact it contributes to them. The reason gay people were able to come out of the closet was because of free speech. Being able to talk about the issue. You want to cut out the only escape hatch people have. You think we have it all figured out... what is right and wrong. That we are able as a society to correctly label what speech should be allowed, and what shouldn't. But we aren't. We need free speech in order to figure out right-from-wrong. To hash things out verbally and in written form so that we DONT act out horrible ideas.
  - dfsDfass123124 7y ago
    A lot more will die because you decided amoral corporate entities should have total control over national discourse. My ancestors killed to prevent a situation like that.

ohithereyou 7y ago

>there are some ideas that don't deserve a seat at the table Is it possible to enumerate the set of all ideas that cannot be expressed, and if so, how do you enumerate this set, and who has the power to determine the members of this set? Advocating that someone should have their child drink bleach to cure their autism is a despicable act, and is likely criminal after the fact, but that's the difference here - it's criminal after someone takes action on it. Quoting Justice Brandeis from Whitney v. California: >Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. [...] If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

andy_ppp 7y ago
They should still be allowed to be seen but should be heavily caveatted as NOT TRUE if we know they aren't. Another good one is the reporting on vaccines causing autism, but we all know vaccines save millions of lives.
- dfsDfass123124 7y ago
  Twitter obviously should be the ones to determine what is true and false.
- prepend 7y ago
  I can’t think of any entity whose NOT TRUE label would mean anything to me. And I think that I try to understand topics. I can’t imagine the flack that would come when some robot labels trans people’s gender identity as NOT TRUE based on biological grounds. I think that any group labeling things TRUE and NOT TRUE will only make things worse.

tux1968 7y ago

> there are some ideas that don't deserve a seat at the table. If you don't like an idea you're free to ignore it. Freedom of speech is really about the freedom for each of us to hear. What you're really advocating is that you don't want other people to have access to ideas with which you personally disapprove. This is such an authoritarian notion that I don't understand how it has become a socially acceptable idea to espouse.

DanBC 7y ago
> I don't understand how it has become a socially acceptable idea to espouse. We got fed up of people being murdered because they're black, Jewish, gay, trans, female, etc etc.
- tux1968 7y ago
  Yeah, suppressing free speech is NOT going to help with any of those tragedies. In fact it contributes to them. The reason gay people were able to come out of the closet was because of free speech. Being able to talk about the issue. You want to cut out the only escape hatch people have. You think we have it all figured out... what is right and wrong. That we are able as a society to correctly label what speech should be allowed, and what shouldn't. But we aren't. We need free speech in order to figure out right-from-wrong. To hash things out verbally and in written form so that we DONT act out horrible ideas.
- dfsDfass123124 7y ago
  A lot more will die because you decided amoral corporate entities should have total control over national discourse. My ancestors killed to prevent a situation like that.