What's worse: freedom of speech or controlling of freedom of speech

[A dot Ham]

Lefties would want it controlled. Righties would want it not controlled.

An oversimplified purport of political ideals, as I am sure there is evidence to suggest that both are equally guilty of the other.

[Fencers]

Said by the Nazis after the Reichstag was burned. So they got rid of Freedom of Speech.

Controlling speech, which all nations and governments do to one degree or another, is different than having no speech.

Also, only a government has an obligation to uphold the right to freedom of expression. As the OP examples, there is no benefit (and very, very few allow such) to a non-government entity allowing for others to control the narrative.

[Taso]

Controlling freedom of speech is much worse. Yes there are things that go haywire but that's the price to pay to have freedom and expression. Imagine you could not criticize the president? Imagine you could not call yourself Antifa or socialist/communist or a liberal republican? It would annoy the masses like never before.
Of course we had something like this under john Adams:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html
Let's just say if gallup existed back then Adams would beat bush and Truman in lowest approval rating for doing that.
So while hate speech is a problem I would rather people peacefully assemble their views over venting their hate by committing actual crime.

[PC2]

Controlling speech, which all nations and governments do to one degree or another, is different than having no speech.

Also, only a government has an obligation to uphold the right to freedom of expression. As the OP examples, there is no benefit (and very, very few allow such) to a non-government entity allowing for others to control the narrative.

In a free society there is no one narrative. There is multiple narratives, debate, the Socratic method. Only an authoritarian requires 1 sole narrative.

[Deleted]

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press and Democracy are the most important attributes a society can have. They keep those in power susceptible and the people free to challenge them. We have two totalitarian regimes rise and fall in Europe and we're all the better for it. Near universal acceptance of these ideals in Euopre have stopped wars between the major powers. I get that clauses like fire example and incentive to violence are sometimes included etc but at the end of the day I can call my Prime Minter a miserable old c#$% with literally no reprisels from my government (not sure how mmoc treat swearing :P).

'Hurt Feels' are not a reason to ban anything. People can use racial and homophobic slurs if they want and can watch people distance themsevles from them, but never make those illegal.

[Eyliria]

If you think controlling speech is fine, that's probably because youcan't possibly see how one day it might come for your thoughts and ideas.
If your ideas are shit, your ideas will be defeated by better ideas. We already have failsafes against the direct threat/inciting of violence.

One of the current problems is that a lot of people are keen on taking any sleight against them as a LITERAL THREAT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.

If I say you're garbage and your ideas are garbage, and that strikes a chord in you so deep that you have to take a day off work because you think that's akin to a punch to the jaw... that's on you, not me.

[Sunseeker]

Uncontrolled freedom of speech is insanity. Libel, slander, threats, verbal abuse, inciting to riot, these are not forms of speech that are beneficial to the healthy discourse of ideas.

[Ooid]

Everyone in this thread advocating for free speech are going to go on a trip to reeducation camps soon. We can't have those incorrect opinions see the light of discourse after all.

[Fencers]

In a free society there is no one narrative.

Sure there is. Few entities wants or are able to communicate multiple narratives. Changing the narrative is another matter- and common.

There is debate, the Socratic method. Only an authoritarian requires 1 sole narrative.

These things do not exclude the need for an entity to control their narrative. That is the point of debate.

Debate does not involve one party feeling meh about their position. They argue their position in an effort to press the narrative they wish; Oranges are delicious, Apples are terrible.

Socratic method in particular reinforces the need for one's narrative to be owned.

[Dispraise]

these are not forms of speech that are beneficial to the healthy discourse of ideas.

You know what else isn't healthy for discourse?

Having no discourse at all.

[YUPPIE]

Sites like 4chan should be taken more seriously as a threat and demolished while reddit should be constantly promoted is what I am getting at with this, mainly.

[Sunseeker]

You know what else isn't healthy for discourse?

Having no discourse at all.

Limiting some things is not limiting everything. All of the things I mentioned are already not protected speech. Discourse seems to be working fine.

[PC2]

Sure there is. Few entities wants or are able to communicate multiple narratives. Changing the narrative is another matter- and common.

These things do not exclude the need for an entity to control their narrative. The is the point of debate.

Debate does not involve one party feeling meh about their position. They argue their position in an effort to press the narrative they wish; Oranges are delicious, Apples are terrible.

Socratic method in particular reinforces the need for one's narrative to be owned.

Yeah these points are consistent, multiple entities, multiple narratives. The only way that gets reduced to one is with some type of futuristic Borg technology.

[Daedius]

Any form of censorship is worse imo. With censorship comes brainwashing... and Governments would love nothing but, especially more so today than before with how widely available info is now through the internet.

Differences of opinion should not be censored.

If people are being problematic, at an individual level, such as instigating violence or radicalising and such then they should be apprehended for being a public safety concern. As in those actually acting out.

Thought crime shouldn't even be a thing though...

[toxicrusader]

What's worse: People completely misunderstanding what rights people have under the constitution and what constitutes "freedom of speech".

We have a winner.

By the way, a drunk american was punched in a bar in Germany for doing the nazi salute. Guess they don't have freedom of speech there.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/13/wo...rnd/index.html

[PC2]

Guess they don't have freedom of speech there.

Nobody in Germany does if violence is an acceptable response to non-violent expressions.

[Dispraise]

Limiting some things is not limiting everything. All of the things I mentioned are already not protected speech. Discourse seems to be working fine.

The discussion is about which is worse, control or lack of control. Two extremes. Presenting only half the argument fails to illustrate the whole picture. If you're going to list the extreme of lack of control, I'm going to list the extreme of control. You say slander, threats, verbal abuse, inciting to riot. I say ideological boxes, censorship, thought policing and the suppression of ideas. Discourse is not healthy under the former, but it doesn't exist at all under the latter.

[YUPPIE]

Destroying 4chan won't fix anything and could make things worse. They are given too much credit as is, because most are just trolls who don't take any of it seriously. The ones that do take it seriously need to be held accountable for their actions not for the things they post.

they're NOT FUCKING MOSTLY TROLLS, THEY'RE PROVEN TERRORISTS that shouldn't be taken lightly. They kill people daily and promote white supremacy among other things like what you see on news.

Do reading or research, no offense.

[melodramocracy]

I prefer more moderation instead of less. Clean up the trash.

The better solution is little to no moderation at all, and instead allow people to completely block opinions they don't want to hear from.

"I don't want to read this" is infinitely better than "I'm deciding that no one should read this"

[toxicrusader]

Nobody in Germany does if violence is an acceptable response to non-violent expressions.

I don't know which tone you took to read my argument but here we go...

While punching people is wrong, the nazi salute is more dangerous, don't you think?