6 ms·

Should all opinions based on bad reasons be banned? Should people be compelled to explain their beliefs? Who decides if these opinions are good or illegal? I d

Should all opinions based on bad reasons be banned? Should people be compelled to explain their beliefs? Who decides if these opinions are good or illegal? I don't believe fairly arbitrating expression based on beliefs is feasible, and I do believe it is actively harmful

slg 5y ago
Everyone is free to their own opinions. Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations. We already apply this to other forms of restriction on speech like defamation. Often defamation will require negligence to harm or intent to harm. Someone who is factually incorrect through an honest mistake generally isn't considered to have committed defamation. I don't know why we are okay trying to ascertain the motive behind speech in one instance and not another.
- ForgotMyPwOops 5y ago
  - slg 5y ago
    Defamation has a singular victim. Hate speech has a class of victim. Why should we allow one and not the other? Why can't we just scale up our defamation laws to also apply to groups of people?
    - ForgotMyPwOops 5y ago
      I don't think you can justly punish people for an unquanitifiable "group harm" with regards to speech You could easily use such a justification to ban anti-war speech (something that has been done before), or ban speech against whatever you favorite political view is
      - slg 5y ago
        I'm not sure why we need to quantify the harm, but even if we did, how does that harm change? Why is it illegal to lie about an individual but it is legal to make that exact same lie about the group in which that individual belongs? Wouldn't you be equally harmed if I said "ForgotMyPwOops drinks the blood of babies" compared to if I said "Everyone of ForgotMyPwOops's ethnic group drinks the blood of babies"? Also we could just limit this to protected groups as they are currently defined for discrimination. That solves your problem with anti-war speech or generic political views.
- guelo 5y ago
  American defamation laws are neutered compared to other western countries because of the 1st amendment.
- worik 5y ago
  > Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations Really? That requires mind reading. Do you mean "...depending on their effects"?
  - slg 5y ago
    We do this with plenty of crimes. Murdering your spouse to collect their life insurance policy is punished harsher than murdering your spouse after you come home to find them having an affair. Motivations and intent matter.
    - worik 5y ago
      It is the same crime. Motivation does not count to guilt. Intent does, but intent is different from motivation. Do I need to explain that?
      - slg 5y ago
        That was one example of the law no acting based purely on result. If you want specifically an example of motivation what about killing in self defense? That is a motivation and not an intent. It can also be what decides guilt or innocence.

slg 5y ago

Everyone is free to their own opinions. Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations. We already apply this to other forms of restriction on speech like defamation. Often defamation will require negligence to harm or intent to harm. Someone who is factually incorrect through an honest mistake generally isn't considered to have committed defamation. I don't know why we are okay trying to ascertain the motive behind speech in one instance and not another.

ForgotMyPwOops 5y ago
- slg 5y ago
  Defamation has a singular victim. Hate speech has a class of victim. Why should we allow one and not the other? Why can't we just scale up our defamation laws to also apply to groups of people?
  - ForgotMyPwOops 5y ago
    I don't think you can justly punish people for an unquanitifiable "group harm" with regards to speech You could easily use such a justification to ban anti-war speech (something that has been done before), or ban speech against whatever you favorite political view is
    - slg 5y ago
      I'm not sure why we need to quantify the harm, but even if we did, how does that harm change? Why is it illegal to lie about an individual but it is legal to make that exact same lie about the group in which that individual belongs? Wouldn't you be equally harmed if I said "ForgotMyPwOops drinks the blood of babies" compared to if I said "Everyone of ForgotMyPwOops's ethnic group drinks the blood of babies"? Also we could just limit this to protected groups as they are currently defined for discrimination. That solves your problem with anti-war speech or generic political views.
guelo 5y ago
American defamation laws are neutered compared to other western countries because of the 1st amendment.
worik 5y ago
> Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations Really? That requires mind reading. Do you mean "...depending on their effects"?
- slg 5y ago
  We do this with plenty of crimes. Murdering your spouse to collect their life insurance policy is punished harsher than murdering your spouse after you come home to find them having an affair. Motivations and intent matter.
  - worik 5y ago
    It is the same crime. Motivation does not count to guilt. Intent does, but intent is different from motivation. Do I need to explain that?
    - slg 5y ago
      That was one example of the law no acting based purely on result. If you want specifically an example of motivation what about killing in self defense? That is a motivation and not an intent. It can also be what decides guilt or innocence.