The problem with drawing lines is that lines can then be moved. The most obvious gets censored first, then the next, and at some point people can’t talk about anything because it is offensive to someone in power. Who decides what is and isn’t censorable? If the counter to vile speech is its opposing view treated also openly, hate and violence won’t grow under a censorship. Again, it’s not the freedom of speech that creates these problems, but other issues in society that make hating others attractive. Ignorance and segregation and pitting one group against another for power purposes.
The argument is flawed. As the vile rhetoric out in the open, normalizes it. This in turn causes it to be used more, snowballing out of control. It deserves to be in the shadows… skulking… it belongs there… it will never go away.
Countering speech with more speech, might work in an honest conversation, but when one side blatantly lies and has no shame… when we are in a post truth situation… with alternative facts and NO consequences… while the billionaire class hold the reighns to all the media you consume…
The speech with more speech will not work.
Next to that… saying Nazi shit and a plethora of other things deserve a punch in the mouth… the US should have a law that anyone calling a black person the N word can be punched in the mouth by said black person or a designated representative… that would be a just law.
What about the other part of their argument though? Do you really think censorship powers can be withheld from those who are eager to abuse them? If the incoming government in the US was constitutionally able to be sanctioning vigilante violence against racist speech, I’m pretty sure one of the first things they would do with that is to classify people protesting the Palestinian genocide as being valid targets, under the logic that criticizing Israel is racist, for example.
Even if it was true that censorship is a more effective way to control toxic rhetoric than honest discourse, it would still be the case that it is an incredibly dangerous weapon. If we can’t ensure that untrustworthy malevolent people never get the power to use it, there’s no way it does more good than harm.
Unfortunately you’re right that in a system where true dialogue can’t exist to make bad arguments die appropriately this doesn’t work well or at all. However neither does a censorship ideology since that can be manipulated, being my point that drawing lines results in new lines further. Given the Catch-22, I’d rather be open than allow someone control who can say what.
Don’t you think rather than the problem being anyone being able to say racist or hateful things, maybe the problem is too many other people are fine with such things when they’re said? That’s why I said it’s deeper than just the 1st Amendment.
Why not both tackle the systemic issues while not allowing people to poison everything with their vile rhetoric.
Out and about Nazis emboldened to do their thing is not a good thing.
The problem with drawing lines is that lines can then be moved. The most obvious gets censored first, then the next, and at some point people can’t talk about anything because it is offensive to someone in power. Who decides what is and isn’t censorable? If the counter to vile speech is its opposing view treated also openly, hate and violence won’t grow under a censorship. Again, it’s not the freedom of speech that creates these problems, but other issues in society that make hating others attractive. Ignorance and segregation and pitting one group against another for power purposes.
so you’re saying it’s a slippery slope?
because that’s not a good reason not to do something
The argument is flawed. As the vile rhetoric out in the open, normalizes it. This in turn causes it to be used more, snowballing out of control. It deserves to be in the shadows… skulking… it belongs there… it will never go away.
Countering speech with more speech, might work in an honest conversation, but when one side blatantly lies and has no shame… when we are in a post truth situation… with alternative facts and NO consequences… while the billionaire class hold the reighns to all the media you consume…
The speech with more speech will not work.
Next to that… saying Nazi shit and a plethora of other things deserve a punch in the mouth… the US should have a law that anyone calling a black person the N word can be punched in the mouth by said black person or a designated representative… that would be a just law.
What about the other part of their argument though? Do you really think censorship powers can be withheld from those who are eager to abuse them? If the incoming government in the US was constitutionally able to be sanctioning vigilante violence against racist speech, I’m pretty sure one of the first things they would do with that is to classify people protesting the Palestinian genocide as being valid targets, under the logic that criticizing Israel is racist, for example.
Even if it was true that censorship is a more effective way to control toxic rhetoric than honest discourse, it would still be the case that it is an incredibly dangerous weapon. If we can’t ensure that untrustworthy malevolent people never get the power to use it, there’s no way it does more good than harm.
Unfortunately you’re right that in a system where true dialogue can’t exist to make bad arguments die appropriately this doesn’t work well or at all. However neither does a censorship ideology since that can be manipulated, being my point that drawing lines results in new lines further. Given the Catch-22, I’d rather be open than allow someone control who can say what.
Don’t you think rather than the problem being anyone being able to say racist or hateful things, maybe the problem is too many other people are fine with such things when they’re said? That’s why I said it’s deeper than just the 1st Amendment.