pull down to refresh
121 sats \ 11 replies \ @k00b OP 1 Sep \ parent \ on: Free speech isn't guaranteed to be forever libertarian
Are you arguing in favor of censorship so long as it's done with discipline?
I'm arguing that there is truth, and therefore there is a monopoly on it. And old philosophical question goes: Is it ever okay to torture an infant for fun?
reply
reply
Nobody has a monopoly on the truth, nobody can discern "misinformation" from truth consistently or without bias, and nobody can define "hate speech" in universally acceptable terms that don't recall blasphemy laws of centuries past.
Direct refutation of that line. Somebody can. Perhaps many somebodies. Doing it consistently though, is tedious, and makes people socially disliked, typically.
reply
reply
Oh I see now. So you're in favor of censorship so long as such somebodies are in charge of it?
There is nothing to censor if there is simply the truth, and lies.
Or, were you making an adjacent point that has no impact on the practicalities of electing people to censor?
A hypothetical person who knew the truth and cut out all the lies would not be censoring since people aren't supposed to lie to start with. The alternative position of allowing lies to mingle with the truth is never going to lead to free speech since lies remove freedom.
reply
reply
Plato called them "Philosopher Kings".
reply
Do you have any living examples of such people? This article was about censorship happening in the world today and whether governments, staffed with who they are, should legally be allowed to "cut out all the lies" however they define lies.
I'm just wondering if you're stictly talking in ideals while this article and Brazilians are concerned with practical matters.