Submitted by Sorin61 t3_z7qa8l in technology
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy8li3s wrote
Reply to comment by Erebeon in UK waters down internet rules plan after free speech outcry by Sorin61
There are problems with allowing free speech to be sure. Democracy is a messy system but it's the best we have.
History has taught us over and over that free speech is a cornerstone of a legitimate democracy.
Free speech has issues but censoring speech has much worse issues.
Basically you are using the wrong tool (censoring people and removing freedom of speech) to stop hate speech.
Sniffy4 t1_iy9gx7p wrote
>History has taught us over and over that free speech is a cornerstone of a legitimate democracy.
History has also taught us that hate speech gets lots of people killed and can turn elections and put itself into power.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9hcgh wrote
You miss the point clearly.
There are pros & cons easy way here. However it's clear that free speech is the better of the 2 (vs censoring speech)
Sniffy4 t1_iy9hw3q wrote
> You miss the point clearly
No I completely got your point, it just happens to be wrong.
There have *always* been boundaries on public discourse for good reason (people die) and pretending like there never have been is not helpful.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9yfrr wrote
Never said there weren't boundaries in the past, not sure where you got that from...
What I am saying is that outside of basic boundaries which generally involve the matter being settled in the courts, there hasn't been been effective more wholesale censorship implemented in a way that doesn't severely undermine democracy.
You are just throwing your opinion out there "more censorship will equal less hate speech" without any specific details on how such a complicated and vast system would operate.
Try this...explain in detail what would and would not constitute hate speech as well as inaccurate information.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments