It seems to me a repeating pattern that once freedom of thought, speech and expression is limited for essentially any reason, it will have unintended consequences.

Once the tools are in place, they will be used, abused and inevitably end up in the hands of someone you disagree with, regardless of whether the original implementer had good intentions.

As such I’m personally very averse to restrictions. I’ve thought about the question a fair bit – there isn’t a clear cut or obvious line to draw.

Please elaborate and motivate your answer. I’m genuinely curious about getting some fresh perspectives.

  • anonymous111@lemmy.world
    4·
    1 day ago

    I’ve been giving this some thought and the only line I can see is banning the calls for violence against a individual or protected group.

    I think anything more or less restrictive causes trouble.

    Example points:

    • Cannot discuss declaring war (voilence) on another country.
    • Can never lie or can not cause harm = can not tell a joke.
    • Cannot ban misinformation = who decides? In the 1960 being gay was illegal, should the gay right movement have been banned as misinformation?

    Societies grow by challenging norms.

    I think our weird society can be fixed by teaching critical thinking in schools and introspection. However, philosophers have been saying similar things for at least 2000 years and it hasn’t caught on yet.

    Happy to discuss the above as I’d like to work the angles for a better line, if we think there is one.