12-31-2007, 06:32 AM
[quote MacMagus]> True, but i think we can (mostly) agree that there are certain forms of speech which should
> either be limited or at the very least, moderated.
No. I don't agree.
I don't think that there's any form of speech that should be per se outlawed or moderated (censored).
There are rare circumstances where speech might be used to incite inappropriate violence where I would tentatively be in favor of criminal punishment.
Would you not agree that certain forms of hate speech should be limited? You can argue that nothing whatsoever should be limited, but then you aren't acknowledging the fact that certain forms of speech ARE actions, and should be treated (and punished) as such.
[quote MacMagus]There are circumstances where I'd agree that if a person knowingly lied in a public forum then that person should be held accountable for real damages in civil court.
But to ban or "moderate" all of the forms of speech that might be interpreted as criminal incitement or worthy of civil damages is repugnant to me and I believe that it is contrary to the needs of the citizenry both for civil society and representative government.
I never said to ban; I would say moderation is in order. I repeat: we do not generally allow anyone to say anything they like at any time. We are not, as a society, at that level of "free speech".
[quote MacMagus]More to the point: You seem to be saying that stating a hurtful opinion publicly under the veil of anonymity should be outlawed. I can't agree with that.
No, what I am saying is that one should be held accountable to one's actions. If one makes a hurtful opinion-- in particular, one which is either substantially untruthful and/or which cannot be easily refuted-- then one should be held accountable. Criminally accountable, if need be. The problem in this case is that the anonymity makes it extremely difficult for it to be refuted or proven untrue. That is to say, someone on one of these websites can use the veil of anonymity to get away with making substantially defamatory or untrue statements, without being held accountable.
> either be limited or at the very least, moderated.
No. I don't agree.
I don't think that there's any form of speech that should be per se outlawed or moderated (censored).
There are rare circumstances where speech might be used to incite inappropriate violence where I would tentatively be in favor of criminal punishment.
Would you not agree that certain forms of hate speech should be limited? You can argue that nothing whatsoever should be limited, but then you aren't acknowledging the fact that certain forms of speech ARE actions, and should be treated (and punished) as such.
[quote MacMagus]There are circumstances where I'd agree that if a person knowingly lied in a public forum then that person should be held accountable for real damages in civil court.
But to ban or "moderate" all of the forms of speech that might be interpreted as criminal incitement or worthy of civil damages is repugnant to me and I believe that it is contrary to the needs of the citizenry both for civil society and representative government.
I never said to ban; I would say moderation is in order. I repeat: we do not generally allow anyone to say anything they like at any time. We are not, as a society, at that level of "free speech".
[quote MacMagus]More to the point: You seem to be saying that stating a hurtful opinion publicly under the veil of anonymity should be outlawed. I can't agree with that.
No, what I am saying is that one should be held accountable to one's actions. If one makes a hurtful opinion-- in particular, one which is either substantially untruthful and/or which cannot be easily refuted-- then one should be held accountable. Criminally accountable, if need be. The problem in this case is that the anonymity makes it extremely difficult for it to be refuted or proven untrue. That is to say, someone on one of these websites can use the veil of anonymity to get away with making substantially defamatory or untrue statements, without being held accountable.