US Politics Thread

BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Instead of throwing insults about, let's please engage in conversation... and if you still disagree with me after reading the following.. debate.

That said...

Free speech is extremely important. Individuals must have the right to free discourse otherwise we creep into totalitarian regimes.

At the same time, completely unrestricted free speech is clearly undesirable. For example, you can't shout, "Fire!," in a crowded theater when no fire is present. And drawing from current political events... gag orders are sometimes placed on individuals to prevent them from intimidating jurors...

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously stated, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

And yet, here we are in the 21st century, where, currently, you are entitled to your own facts without even necessarily knowing that what you think to be facts are, actually, not factual.
===
Perhaps my previous posts conflated two matters with regard to public statements. That of attribution. And that of fact.

With regard to attribution - I think it's going to get worse and worse due to AI. AI will shortly advance to the point where it will be possible to create fake videos showing anyone whatsoever voicing anything whatsoever you desire to be said. And social media - including foreign actors on social media - will amplify such posts - and indeed will create them.

I don't think, though, that this will be a major problem. Because, within a few years, videos will be digitally signed, proving their source. And such digital signatures can be made safe even from quantum computing. In future, you'll know for sure, where posts originate, and can disregard posts from sources you don't trust.
===
Yet, there remains the matter of factual posts, versus completely made up content.

And this brings me back to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan quotation. "... you are not entitled to your own facts."

But what does this mean or imply?

As I've argued above, free speech is currently too free. There's far too little curb for telling outright lies. If it's a crime to yell, "Fire!," in a crowded theater that's not actually on fire... because in the rush to exit, people may well die, perhaps even 10s or possibly 100s of people, then why doesn't some sort of curb exist to, for example, claim that covid isn't real, it's make believe, or that covid vaccination is unnecessary because you can simply take ivermectin if infected to cure yourself, even if this may result in thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths - orders of magnitude worse than shouting, "Fire!"

The "yelling fire" versus "covid vaccinations are unnecessary" argument I've posed doesn't precisely overlap... I think that you should be free to express doubt in covid vaccination, provided that your expression of doubt can be flagged as running counter to accepted science/medical opinion.

Granted... it's going to be complicated as hell to update free speech laws to the 21st century... but I think it's doable. But if it's not doable, then we're fucked... because you will be entitled to your own facts.
Click to expand...
Sorry, this is nonsense and doesn’t even address the remark I made. I have no wish to debate somebody who advocates appointing a speech overlord. Cheers.
 
KS55 said:
Sorry, this is nonsense and doesn’t even address the remark I made. I have no wish to debate somebody who advocates appointing a speech overlord. Cheers.
Click to expand...
Then, without meaning to insult, I think you're naive, on this matter, or, perhaps you completely misunderstand me.

I don't advocate "a" free speech "overlord."

Nor do I argue that you can't, in almost every instance, say what you want.

I'm simply arguing that some few posts should be flagged as running counter to accepted thought/science in cases where such posts will lead to clear societal harm... this is already occurring on some social media platforms to even greater extent than I propose - albeit in a completely self-serving, ad-hoc manner.

I advocate that you are free to say what you want in almost every instance. In extant examples where such speech is clearly detrimental to society, then, such speech should continue to be outlawed. But new... and required... I think... is labeling of posts that run completely counter to science and fact as being questionable. You can still post such claims, but such posts should be flagged.

We're in the 21st century with new technologies that enable free communication in ways that are entirely novel and foreign to previous law making. And that similarly pose new challenges to societal well being.

How does one decide what is questionable/counter to science and what is not? How does society choose the members of an organization that flags potentially harmful posts, to ensure that they're neutral in terms of politics and are free from corruption? The devil is in the details. And yet I think it can be done.

Or perhaps you are of the opinion that it's OK to yell, "Fire!," in that crowded theater?

Or less provocatively... perhaps you're of the opinion that 20th century laws regarding free speech are all that's needed in the 21st century.
 
Last edited:
jim tolmies perm said:
The Dems have really got to start seriously exposing this "Project 2025" abomination.
Day and night, 24/7
Fucking frightening
Click to expand...
They should belittle him at every opportunity. Turn the TV debate next week into a roast.

He will explode on live TV.
 
Last edited:
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Then, without meaning to insult, I think you're naive, on this matter, or, perhaps you completely misunderstand me.

I don't advocate "a" free speech "overlord."

Nor do I argue that you can't, in almost every instance, say what you want.

I'm simply arguing that some few posts should be flagged as running counter to accepted thought/science in cases where such posts will lead to clear societal harm... this is already occurring on some social media platforms to even greater extent than I propose - albeit in a completely self-serving, ad-hoc manner.

I advocate that you are free to say what you want in almost every instance. In extant examples where such speech is clearly detrimental to society, then, such speech should continue to be outlawed. But new... and required... I think... is labeling of posts that run completely counter to science and fact as being questionable. You can still post such claims, but such posts should be flagged.

We're in the 21st century with new technologies that enable free communication in ways that are entirely novel and foreign to previous law making. And that similarly pose new challenges to societal well being.

How does one decide what is questionable/counter to science and what is not? How does society choose the members of an organization that flags potentially harmful posts, to ensure that they're neutral in terms of politics and are free from corruption? The devil is in the details. And yet I think it can be done.

Or perhaps you are of the opinion that it's OK to yell, "Fire!," in that crowded theater?

Or less provocatively... perhaps you're of the opinion that 20th century laws regarding free speech are all that's needed in the 21st century.
Click to expand...
You clearly have no understanding of the implications of the policy you suggest. Who decides whether something gets the seal of approval? (Especially if there is no overlord) What are the criteria?
Here’s a partial list of people who tried to regulate free speech: Hitler, Stalin, The Unamerican Activities Committee, Pol Pot, Putin.
All those gentlemen are 20th century, Name some democratic leaders who tried to regulate free speech in the C20th.
PS You’re in the wrong thread. .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.