X banned in Brazil & Musk goes to war with Brazil

[What Am I]

15 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Not yet... just wait until 

 

5 minutes ago, ArcticGong said:

I’d love to see him championing free speech in china.

Everybody is afraid of China, though. If the Western propaganda I've consumed is true, and I believe it is, their leadership has little hesitation in doing some hardcore shit.

[Keryo Koffa]

1 hour ago, Paradoxed said:

Fair to who? You or me? Who decides what is fair?

I nominate ChatGPT

[Jodistrict]

China is authoritarian so they are going to restrict speech.   The more authoritarian the government the less free speech.  If someone argues for restriction on free speech, it is because they have the power to determine which speech is considered “too dangerous” and not permitted.  In reality, the speech that is “too dangerous” is dangerous to their maintaining power.   Everyone would like to prohibit criticism of themselves, but only those who actually have power can do it. 

[Consept]

22 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

China is authoritarian so they are going to restrict speech.   The more authoritarian the government the less free speech.  If someone argues for restriction on free speech, it is because they have the power to determine which speech is considered “too dangerous” and not permitted.  In reality, the speech that is “too dangerous” is dangerous to their maintaining power.   Everyone would like to prohibit criticism of themselves, but only those who actually have power can do it. 

Can you steelman the position of regulation of free speech?

[Jodistrict]

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

Can you steelman the position of regulation of free speech?

It’s not as complicated as it sounds.  US Constitutional law has already carefully carved out areas where regulation of speech is allowed.  For example, if you yell fire in a crowded theatre or advocated violence against an individual, that speech can be regulated under criminal law.  If you spread false facts to defame someone’s reputation, you can be sued under civil law.   Although, these are exceptions to free speech, they are value neutral in that they don’t favor a particular political class or power interest. 

[PurpleTree]

7 hours ago, Nemra said:

I think instead of free speech, it should be fair speech.

Worst idea

[Nemra]

@PurpleTree, how is it worse than the current naming? I was thinking about how people could perceive it.

Edited September 6 by Nemra

[Consept]

5 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

It’s not as complicated as it sounds.  US Constitutional law has already carefully carved out areas where regulation of speech is allowed.  For example, if you yell fire in a crowded theatre or advocated violence against an individual, that speech can be regulated under criminal law.  If you spread false facts to defame someone’s reputation, you can be sued under civil law.   Although, these are exceptions to free speech, they are value neutral in that they don’t favor a particular political class or power interest. 

This is still basically an absolutist position. Let's imagine you are an elected leader of a society and you know that someone promoting misinformation and propaganda is potentially dangerous to your society, in that they plan to gain power through misleading your society and ousting you from power. You also know that they don't care about your society and basically want to bleed it dry for money and maybe will even kill those that oppose them including you, once they have the power to do so. What they are saying is technically within the rules of your laws in that it's not defaming but it is mostly untrue or 'alt-truth'. You also see signs that some people are buying into the false narrative. As leader do you allow them total free speech even if you know the outcome will be negative for you and your society? Or do you come up with some other solution? If so what would that be?

[Buck Edwards]

16 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

Not at all. The Supreme Court successfully stopped a literal coup d'etat from the military and the alt-right, which Elon Musk would love because Bolsonaro, the guy who was stopped is his bitch. 

Brazil did a better job fighting fascism than the US, Bolsonaro is ineligible and will sooner or later be arrested. 

The alt-right is systematically attacking the Supreme Court, especially this one judge called Alexandre de Moraes who did the most work until now.

There isn't a "ban on free speech," but there is a war against fake news on social media like Twitter, and Elon Musk (not surprisingly) decided not to comply with the judicial orders, hence Twitter being blocked after Musk reiteratedly disobeying judicial orders.  

Thats good news, Brazil handled it better than US. 

[Jodistrict]

14 hours ago, Consept said:

This is still basically an absolutist position. Let's imagine you are an elected leader of a society and you know that someone promoting misinformation and propaganda is potentially dangerous to your society, in that they plan to gain power through misleading your society and ousting you from power. You also know that they don't care about your society and basically want to bleed it dry for money and maybe will even kill those that oppose them including you, once they have the power to do so. What they are saying is technically within the rules of your laws in that it's not defaming but it is mostly untrue or 'alt-truth'. You also see signs that some people are buying into the false narrative. As leader do you allow them total free speech even if you know the outcome will be negative for you and your society? Or do you come up with some other solution? If so what would that be?

Not that is not absolutist.  It's Constitutional law that puts in place neutral restrictions that don't favor one side over the other or require a subjective judgment of what is dangerous.  The problem with your scenario is who determines what is  dangerous"?  Someone has to make the decision.  And the decision is made by who is in power and at the end of the day "dangerous" is whatever threatens their power.   Most people want to ban speech that they don't agree with.  That is why freedom of speech is important.  

Edited September 5 by Jodistrict

[What Am I]

10 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

Not that is not absolutist.  It's Constitutional law that puts in place neutral restrictions that don't favor one side over the other or require a subjective judgment of what is dangerous.  The problem with your scenario is who determines what is  dangerous"?  Someone has to make the decision.  And the decision is made by who is in power and at the end of the day "dangerous" is whatever threatens their power.   Most people want to ban speech that they don't agree with.  That is why freedom of speech is important.  

The bolded sentence is the reason why restrictions on free speech have previously been handled with such a light touch, though that attitude does seem to be unfortunately slipping away on a daily basis. The ability to silence ideas is deceptively powerful. Since no individual or group could be trusted with such a decision, it was considered better to live with the inherent consequences of free speech than risk the potential devastating alternative.

Edited September 5 by What Am I

[Jodistrict]

32 minutes ago, What Am I said:

The bolded sentence is the reason why restrictions on free speech have previously been handled with such a light touch, though that attitude does seem to be unfortunately slipping away on a daily basis. The ability to silence ideas is deceptively powerful. Since no individual or group could be trusted with such a decision, it was considered better to live with the inherent consequences of free speech than risk the potential devastating alternative.

Right.  People need to study history.  In the 1960s, civil rights workers were considered a danger to society.  Martin Luther King was investigated by the F.B.I. and considered a dangerous communist.  It was only free speech in the Constitution that allowed them to keep protesting. 

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Jodistrict said:

Not that is not absolutist.  It's Constitutional law that puts in place neutral restrictions that don't favor one side over the other or require a subjective judgment of what is dangerous.  The problem with your scenario is who determines what is  dangerous"?  Someone has to make the decision.  And the decision is made by who is in power and at the end of the day "dangerous" is whatever threatens their power.   Most people want to ban speech that they don't agree with.  That is why freedom of speech is important.  

Who is an important question, but I'm asking if its you in charge how would you navigate it? 

[Jodistrict]

23 minutes ago, Consept said:

Who is an important question, but I'm asking if its you in charge how would you navigate it? 

I would stick with the US Constitutional Law in 60's and 70s when the Supreme Court was expanding free speech.  I think the "hate speech laws" is a slippery slope which will end up biting you in the ass.  

Edited September 5 by Jodistrict

[Consept]

2 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

I would stick with the US Constitutional Law in 60's and 70s when the Supreme Court was expanding free speech.  I think the "hate speech laws" is a slippery slope which will end up biting you in the ass.  

Have you heard the news about Russia paying some right-wing commentators to spread Russian propaganda including anti-ukraine sentiments? Some of the commentators were Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, although they're still digging into it. 

How would your law deal with this real world scenario? Would you let them spread the disinformation in the name of free speech?

[What Am I]

6 minutes ago, Consept said:

Have you heard the news about Russia paying some right-wing commentators to spread Russian propaganda including anti-ukraine sentiments? Some of the commentators were Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, although they're still digging into it. 

How would your law deal with this real world scenario? Would you let them spread the disinformation in the name of free speech?

I'm certainly not very knowledgeable about the law, but didn't an indictment get released? Wouldn't that indicate that there are protections in place for such an event?

[Consept]

5 minutes ago, What Am I said:

I'm certainly not very knowledgeable about the law, but didn't an indictment get released? Wouldn't that indicate that there are protections in place for such an event?

Yeah there are protections in place because obviously the US is gonna police threats and attacks on it. But the point is that if you go down the road of minimal regulation on free speech, these incidents are 100% going to happen. What if this wasn't caught, it hasn't been for a long time. The balancing act of free speech and regulation is a lot more complicated than those advocating for near limitless free speech. Imagine of Russia could just legally spread propaganda, it could literally lead to the collapse of society. This is not even a fantasy worst case, they are literally trying to do this and have been for a while. 

[What Am I]

19 minutes ago, Consept said:

Yeah there are protections in place because obviously the US is gonna police threats and attacks on it. But the point is that if you go down the road of minimal regulation on free speech, these incidents are 100% going to happen. What if this wasn't caught, it hasn't been for a long time. The balancing act of free speech and regulation is a lot more complicated than those advocating for near limitless free speech. Imagine of Russia could just legally spread propaganda, it could literally lead to the collapse of society. This is not even a fantasy worst case, they are literally trying to do this and have been for a while. 

Wouldn't that fall under the "accepted risks" of free speech that I mentioned before? It's an ideal we strive for as a free society, at least in the US. I think everyone knows we'll never quite reach it, and exceptions will have to be made, but to water it down such a significant amount out of concerns for safety may be a monumental risk in itself. Compromising too much in that area seems like it could eventually bite the person pushing for it, and they will predictably end up on the receiving end of what they consider an unjust silencing. Unless the assumption is that their preferences will always be the prevailing way of thought, and leadership will never switch hands again.

I admit though, I could just be naive.

Edited September 5 by What Am I

[Consept]

1 minute ago, What Am I said:

Wouldn't that fall under the "accepted risks" of free speech that I mentioned before? It's an ideal we strive for as a free society, at least in the US. I think everyone knows we'll never quite reach it, and exceptions will have to be made, but to water it down such a significant amount out of concerns for safety may be a monumental risk in itself. Compromising too much in that area seems like it could eventually bite the person pushing for it, and they will predictably end up on the receiving end of what they consider an unjust silencing. Unless the assumption is that their preferences will always be the prevailing way of thought, and leadership will never switch hands again.

We're not talking free speech from within a society, we're talking the lax laws on regulating freedom of speech allowing foreign propaganda to proliferate and potentially destroy the society in the namevof free speech. Your free speech won't last long when you're taken over by a dictator. 

If you were running would you allow damaging false information to run wild? 

I understand your concern of going too far in terms of regulation, but that is where the balance has to come in. To just say there should be blanket free speech is a very simplistic approach that could never work in reality. It couldn't even work on this forum which is why Leo regulates it and has to because most people may not want to be on a forum where hate speech is allowed, hence there are rules. 

[What Am I]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

We're not talking free speech from within a society, we're talking the lax laws on regulating freedom of speech allowing foreign propaganda to proliferate and potentially destroy the society in the namevof free speech. Your free speech won't last long when you're taken over by a dictator. 

This may be a good point. I can imagine a scenario where we're quibbling over minor details as the barbarians at the gate are about to break through. As you said, it'd all be meaningless at that point anyway. It's possible that additional laws against foreign influence would make sense, but it's hard to imagine those laws not being eventually abused. Very unfortunate state of things.

3 minutes ago, Consept said:

If you were running would you allow damaging false information to run wild? 

I understand your concern of going too far in terms of regulation, but that is where the balance has to come in. To just say there should be blanket free speech is a very simplistic approach that could never work in reality. It couldn't even work on this forum which is why Leo regulates it and has to because most people may not want to be on a forum where hate speech is allowed, hence there are rules. 

Yeah, I agree. The absolutist view is probably a bit naive. It's true that things always seem to turn out the same way when a certain amount of decorum isn't enforced.