This is why I don't believe in free speech. It isn't sustainable, especially not with the technology we have now. It gives too much power, and protection, to people with objectively bad ideas that not only do not benefit society, but actively undermines it. What we're seeing now is the direct result of the wrong people being allowed to speak for far too long. The only problem is that strictly regulating a pattern of speech and expression that doesn't undermine a nation could not be sustained over a long period of time. I don't know of anyone who could be trusted with that authority.
An extensive social charter that outlines the kind of people who are allowed to weigh in on sociopolitical issues, particularly people who are employed in sectors not including entertainment, and prohibits certain ideals from being expressed, such as the chemical mutilation of children and making minorities the majority presence in the entertainment industry.
That would be much worse but thanks for answering.
Even if you started out with a ban list that we found reasonable, it's only a matter of time until they expand the prohibition list. It's ripe for abuse. Someone who hates you could just claim that you said something illegal. Then what?
That's why I said it isn't sustainable. You may have an ideal arbitrator for a time, but either the power will corrupt them, or their successor will abuse that power.
This is why I don't believe in free speech. It isn't sustainable, especially not with the technology we have now. It gives too much power, and protection, to people with objectively bad ideas that not only do not benefit society, but actively undermines it. What we're seeing now is the direct result of the wrong people being allowed to speak for far too long. The only problem is that strictly regulating a pattern of speech and expression that doesn't undermine a nation could not be sustained over a long period of time. I don't know of anyone who could be trusted with that authority.
What is your proposed alternative?
An extensive social charter that outlines the kind of people who are allowed to weigh in on sociopolitical issues, particularly people who are employed in sectors not including entertainment, and prohibits certain ideals from being expressed, such as the chemical mutilation of children and making minorities the majority presence in the entertainment industry.
That would be much worse but thanks for answering.
Even if you started out with a ban list that we found reasonable, it's only a matter of time until they expand the prohibition list. It's ripe for abuse. Someone who hates you could just claim that you said something illegal. Then what?
That's why I said it isn't sustainable. You may have an ideal arbitrator for a time, but either the power will corrupt them, or their successor will abuse that power.
"We're only getting rid of the evil people like Alex Jones!"
Literally having garbage takes to own the libs.