Yes, that's what an "ought" argument is.
There are plenty of counterexamples you're ignoring.Meanwhile, in this country, even hate speech is protected speech. So, the idea that one could successfully restrict most of this misinformation... is a pipe dream.
Hate speech largely fails in the USA because the USA is a largely racist country, and always has been. Deliberately and intentionally so within living memory.
That's not an argument on principles, just an argument that racists support racism.
You've said you're fine with restrictions on the First Amendment.No, I've said it's a giant restriction on the First Amendment. You can disagree, but you don't get to change my argument.
Now you don't.
That's hypocrisy and why everyone is calling you out for it.
Literally no different an argument than a white racist in the early '60s saying that they had the "luxury" of blacks being second-class citizens and denying there was any chance they would ever be considered "people" equal to whites.Now, not only to I have the luxury of it currently being legal, I think you and I both know how the SCOTUS would rule on such things. So, I'm pretty content with my position.
And sure; they had SCOTUS backing them up at the time, too.
It isn't a winning argument and it holds zero water.
Not only is it a racist country (like so many others), it's also a country that lauds free speech. Now, it may be weak on issues wih the press, but it is quite strong in its support of free speech itself.
I said I'm fine with some restrictions to free speech. I'm not fine with this, because I don't consider a great deal of it harmful, and because we are dealing with hypotheticals on legislation that isn't even properly defined.
It's not hypocrisy, it's a distinct lack of faith in people and their legislation.
So, if you think you can stop misinformation in this manner, then I welcome you to try. Personally, I think it would fail, and I think it ought to fail.
- - - Updated - - -
You said misinformation is manifestly harmful. Do you want me to grab the quote?
Not particularly in comparison with other developed nations, no. That's simply not true.
Particularly as "issues with the press" is a key indicator.
And yet, you can't specify anything. Your only argument boils down to "you don't like a thing". No explanations as to why you don't.I said I'm fine with some restrictions to free speech. I'm not fine with this, because I don't consider a great deal of it harmful, and because we are dealing with hypotheticals on legislation that isn't even properly defined.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/manifestly
You said misinformation is manifestly harmful. Would you care to expound on your interpretation of that word?
To say nothing of pro-union or pro-social justice speech which has a history of being suppressed by the federal and state governments.
- - - Updated - - -
So you can't actually point out where I said all misinformation is manifestly harmful, then.
Stop avoiding the question: why should misinformation be considered protected speech?
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
And I don't see to many other nations cracking down on misinformation, certainly not in a manner like was being proposed around here.
Sure, the Germans ban more hate speech, and Holocaust denial.
Other countries ban insulting the crown, or the monarchy.
But, I don't see too much more than that. The other poster brought up supposed talks between western nations about such legislation, but I never heard back from him on it.
I specific plenty, like the fact that a great deal of it is based on some truths. I also pointed out that proving harm would be difficult.
See COVID response in the USA, as compared to basically any other developed nation.
The reason for the discrepancy can be nearly entirely put down to "misinformation". That's hundreds of thousands of deaths, let alone everything else.
Canada, by comparison, has had 27,581 deaths from COVID-19. The USA, 680,000. Sure, Canada's a smaller country, but if we control for population, if we had comparable population figures, Canada's rate would only scale up to about 240,000 deaths. So that's, oh, 340,000 cases or so we can put down, in the USA, to "misinformation".
And that's before we get into domestic terrorists and other extremists.
You said misinformation is manifestly harmful.
Which misinformation were you talking about?
It should be protected speech, because I think it absurd to punish someone for saying your zipper is down, when it is in fact... not down. That is misinformation (assuming your zipper is not down).
- - - Updated - - -
And yet, proving harm, especially in the United States, has been shown to be difficult. The very lawsuits you provided even back me on that.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
It's exactly like arguing with a racist about anti-racism legislation.
> "I don't think racism should be banned because they really are inferior."
> *provides examples of how it's all bullshit*
> "Well SCOTUS will never ban it so nyeh."
> *US Civil Rights Act passed*
> "Oh, shit."
There's also the fact that a very dense city got hit hard early, and the NE as a whole got obliterated.
There's the fact that Americans didn't embrace masks and social distancing like other nations. Some of that may be misinformation, but plenty can be attributed to American machismo, willful ignorance, and just plain selfishness.
As for Canada, it's death rate is about 1/3 of the United States, from what I see. There's also issues of population density. I'm not sure about comorbidities, I have no desire to look into the issue of obesity and other problems... because it's not really relevant.
Now, as for misinformation, Americans see plenty of it. And, people are fucking gullible.
- - - Updated - - -
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Considering I just had Trump and the GOP in power, pushing ethno-nationalism and fascism... I known not to ignore those who seek to legislate their will over me.
Do I think there's very little political capital to pull something like this off? Yes. Do I think it's impossible? Nope.