Do democracies sustain attacks from dictatorships because of this possible vulnerability ?
This was a criticism that the Nazis used against liberal democracies. They saw this as a fatal weakness and used it as a justification for keeping in power themselves, once they had achieved it.
Various dictators have said much the same as well.
However, looking at the track record of democracies vs dictatorships or single party states, I think that the data will show that pluralist democracies typically last longer.
A democracy without freedom of speech is not a real democracy as people will not discuss their actual thoughts.
Less. If everyone can say what they want, people can ignore most of it. If someone is locked up or killed for what she said, other people start thinking what she said might be important.
I don’t think the conclusion is correct but that’s a fascinating perspective.
A few other people who heard about it. Most people will believe the only thing they hear, which is what the government tells them. Or if they don’t believe it, they don’t know the extent of skepticism in others and can’t organize without fear of being turned in by a collaborator. So they have to put up with it.
Sometimes people are able to protest things in China, but mostly at the local level. If the national government thinks they can solidify support by arresting a few unpopular local leaders, they’ll do that from time to time if the popular outrage is strong enough.
Of course there’s less division because people who disagree with the dictators are killed.
deleted by creator
See, I think everything you’ve said there actually says yes. Without free speech, there’s only one opinion, and that’s the opinion of who’s in power. You say otherwise, you disappear, so, people stop saying otherwise.
You might have thoughts, but you aren’t saying them, and since nobody else is, there can be no us vs them because nobody knows who’s on what team.
I want to clarify that I don’t think that’s a good thing. Division is not a weakness of democracy, it’s a strength.
I"d argue along that division in a democracy only is a strength if there’s enough division to warrant coalition. Without enough division it can become an us versus them game with neither side willing to find common ground.
I’m not sure but I don’t think that it’s much different. At the same time that you’re abler to voice dissidence under a democracy, the value of doing so is smaller - because everyone else is also doing it, and they compete for the same political reach.
Thanks to
all of you here :
@[email protected] @kbin.social
@[email protected] @kbin.social
@[email protected] @lemmy.world
@[email protected] @feddit.uk
@[email protected] @kbin.social
@[email protected] @sh.itjust.works
@[email protected] @mander.xyz
@[email protected] @midwest.social
@[email protected] @moist.catsweat.com
@[email protected] @reddthat.com
@[email protected] @lemmy.world
@[email protected] @sh.itjust.works
@[email protected] @lemmy.world
@[email protected] @lemmy.world
For your interest in this discussion. I cannot decide for all of you of the final conclusion … but after careful pondering here is what I say :The strongest point would be this :
from(@[email protected] )(…) And when you get less that most of what you want, the population is left with even greater feelings of disappointment in their political leaders. Free speech will be used to exploit these vulnerabilities. Free speech can also alleviate the pressure of these vulnerabilities on democracy. (…)
But this would work only if debates go well enough. The following is relevant here :
from(@[email protected] )
I’d argue that debates aren’t useful without a neutral, mutually trusted media source that listeners from both sides would refer to for fact-checking. The US has debates but the soundbites that partisan media air are the main way people consume them. Few people watch the whole debate, and few want to because they’re mostly just hot air. (…)
I feel this whole social process is really critical (at this point in time) so, thanks again to everyone here.
no
No, but you have to remember, freedom of of speach doesn’t result in the right to insult or humiliate people, let alone call for violence. Freedom of speech should always be kept in check with protection against discrimination or violence.
The moment people start to try to split up societies (see what Trump does in the US) they’re on the road to dictatorships like Russia and China has.
Freedom of speech absolutely results in the right for me to insult people…?
Is it rude? Maybe.
Is it illegal? Absolutely not
yeah, he had me til that. the right to insult is near absolute…kinda at the core of freedom of speech.
Up to a point. When it crosses into harassment, slander, or libel, that freedom can be limited.
While slander and libel are civil issues rather than criminal, that is still a government based limitation on speech/expression.
Yes, Walter, you’re right, but you’re also an asshole!
Are you alowed to insult a person, yes absolutely, but it only proves you’re an absolute asshole. ;)
You can even state you think an ethnic group is bad. You can’t state the same ethnic group is trash and should be whatever. That’s discrimination and not allowed in democratic or even civilised societies.
In democratic/liberal societies you solve your differences via debate. The result may even be that the parties don’t like each other, but as long as they can decide to live in peace together it’s alright. Agree to disagree and continue to live your life is fine, trying to harm others isn’t.
In democratic/liberal societies you solve your differences via debate
We have too little of this in our current society, I feel like. “Debates” are often just screaming matches and it’s really annoying and holds back progress on all ends I fell like.
Also I wasn’t vouching for being an asshole, just pointing out it’s not illegal XD
I’d argue that debates aren’t useful without a neutral, mutually trusted media source that listeners from both sides would refer to for fact-checking. The US has debates but the soundbites that partisan media air are the main way people consume them. Few people watch the whole debate, and few want to because they’re mostly just hot air.
Plus, one candidate can use the debate to lie out of their ass and at least one media source will follow that up by spitting out misleading info to support the lies.
I don’t mean to both-sides this, obviously right wing media is more egregious on this front. But their captured audience tuning out fact-checks from other media is maybe the bigger problem.
All of this happening on the sidelines fundamentally alters the purpose of a debate. For example, changing the tone and style of interaction; people aren’t trying to come to an agreement or win over new supporters, just shout over someone to get in soundbites that can be replayed by their team.
freedom of of speach doesn’t result in the right to insult or humiliate people, let alone call for violence.
As a value and as a principle, unrestricted freedom of speech does grant you the right to insult and humiliate people - because “you’re trash and deserve to be treated as such” is still speech. It also grants you the right to silence other people, by screaming (metaphorically or even physically) so loud that they can’t be heard any more.
However since this conflicts with other rights and it does not scale (no two people in the same room can have unrestricted freedom of speech at the same time), most [all?] laws geared towards the protection of speech draw a line somewhere, and stop protecting your freedom of speech in a few occasions. Where they draw said line is up to the government.
