Curiously, all the people that support such censorship in western countries are actually against it in this instance. Almost like whether or not they choose to support a policy depends not on what it does but instead on who it’s being done to.
Well, or they have a more nuanced view than "censorship no" or "censorship yes"
For example, I support laws preventing stores from selling 3 watt LED bulbs in packages claiming they're 5 watt LED bulbs; or selling generic LED bulbs in packages claiming they're Phillips bulbs. Even though the printed text is surely the manufacturer's speech.
Must I support all censorship, because I support this one bit of censorship?
It is the case that unless you are a polymath with copious amount of time and money, you will never be able to accumulate sufficient information to make fully educated decisions in a world truly devoid of censorship.
By fully educated I mean starting from the bottom up and going all the way through to reach a conclusion.
This means that every single resource you will use has to be verified, all experiments need to be conducted and evaluated.
If we don’t censor anything, then there is no point in books because editors are censoring information there.
What’s the point of journals and publications without a review process to filter out the garbage?
You could very well be a reasonable person, but without censorship to varying degrees your capacity filter garbage is hindered by simply not knowing anything to a reasonable degree of certainty exactly because no form of censorship exists. Thus your capacity to limit information based on prior knowledge is hindered as there is not an authority of any kind that you may trust exactly because there is no way to measure quality of one’s speech outside the scrutiny it passes through through established channels and authorities that already have a reputation and we may trust.
The reason we do censorship is because not all speech is benevolent, useful, or true. People will abuse the absence of censorship to attack “unwanted” people, to push lies, to misrepresent information, and to push an agenda instead of letting facts do the talking.
Why is it difficult for facts to do the talking?
> Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. It states that "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."[1][2]
Now, the more bullshit that floats the more bullshit propagates and thus the less true information exists, eventually suffocating us in information garbage.
If you wish to see this in action, look into antivax groups convinced that vaccinated individuals will start dropping like flies within the next $LATEST_GOALPOST.
Or, take a look at how long it took me to explain why absolute absence of censorship simply does not work just from a view of having a consistent world model and having nobody to trust and no way of doing so.
One could extend my comment to include damage done to people or entities intentionally or otherwise. Notice how Musk pivoted out of absolute free speech when advertisers left?
Of course that is a ridiculous scenario, as are most straw man arguments.
And the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" trope was original made in support to argue for censorship of speech opposing the draft during WWI so if anything it's an example for why we should absolutely defend free speech even if there are seeming arguments to restrict it. The better solution to prevent stampedes in crowded spaces is to have safety regulation requiring adequate exits and occupancy limits, which we do have. Movie theaters are also not public spaces so they can easily ban people for causing a disturbance.
The latency on information coming from a newspaper or even TV news is limited to how rapidly those sources can vet the information before publishing it, and then the latency of the publication method. If someone wants to use those avenues to spread misinformation, they have to do a lot of legwork to make the lie sound plausible enough that the publisher will put the effort into publishing it.
What's the legwork for someone planning to spread misinformation via twitter? How long does it take "for new facts to emerge" that address the misgivings incredulous consumers hold? The power of social media is that the real truth can emerge very quickly, regardless of what the powers that be want. But the threat of social media is that there's basically no organic way to prevent abuse of that power.
Others are right that the line between misinformation and difference of opinion is often quite narrow. But I don't believe there is no difference, and every society must choose and hold its line, according to its own values.
The poster's point was pretty simple: there is some speech which doesn't deserve to be fully protected to the highest possible level. Untrue commercial speech like false advertising is pretty much in that category. This is why we allow attorneys-general to bring cases against false advertisers, for example.
Usually the remedy is monetary damages, but injunctive relief is also available.
I can easily maintain that this is sensible and reasonable without "arresting people for showing a 3 watt bulb they claim to be 5 watts."
This is a really strange perspective. Advertising is only advertising once the advertised product is sold? A billboard is simultaneously an advertisement and not an advertisement depending on whether the observer has purchased the advertised item?
Not the GP but no, I'm not fine with arresting people over light bulbs. I am totally cool with arresting them for fraud if it meets that standard. I am also cool with the business being fined or otherwise sanctioned for false advertisement. The product is beside the point. The deception is what the punishment is intended to address.
If you show off your car you are indeed, by definition advertising it.
I know that's not the definition youre referring to, but the word does mean to call attention to, especially in a boastful or ostentatious manner.
But anyway, it's still advertising because the car has the manufacturers badges, it's just not first order commercial advertising.
I just can't anymore with HN. Who are these people who are redefining common terms to suit their own views?
No one has claimed anything about advertising without the intent to sell. Indeed, that's been everyone's point since this bit of the thread started with michaelt's comment. Commercial speech is an area were most people agree that some constraints are useful. Hence it was used as an example of why censorship is nuanced not binary. People have different standards for what's reasonable and what's not, but only the most die hard free speech advocates would not have a standard at all.
You have frequently taken examples that are clearly in the advertising with intent to sell context and treated them as if they apply in a non-commercial context. This is how we get to you accusing people of being OK with arresting people over light bulbs when they're actually saying they're OK with laws against fraudulent advertising.
If you are selling or intending to sell something, and you choose to have it mediated by the government, whether or not you’re allowed to falsely advertise something has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We aren’t agreeing that censorship is allowed. Censorship isn’t voluntary.
Why can I not decide “if it would result in people dying, speech can be restricted?”
I mean, if you told me I could only restrict one of these, then surely I would pick the second anyways.
It is hard to discern any moral content here, and I suspect there is none.
My car (not for sale) has a nuclear reactor and can travel through time.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/advertising-...
Counter-example:
> What can my company do if a competitor is running an ad that I think is deceptive?
> Explore your legal options under federal and state statutes that protect businesses from unfair competition. For example, the Lanham Act gives companies the right to sue their competitors for making deceptive claims in ads.
> Are advertising agencies subject to the FTC Act?
> Yes. In addition to the advertiser, the advertising agency also may be held legally responsible for misleading claims in ads. Advertising agencies have a duty to make an independent check on the information used to substantiate ad claims. They may not rely on an advertiser's assurance that the claims are substantiated.
I don't see anything about false advertising requiring a sale.
viewer goes and tosses out all their presumably-cancer causing products, never purchases Febreze
I'm not sure where I stand on the matter personally.
Like, taking the constant social turmoil in America as an example: anything people dislike they call disinformation/fake news, but are equally guilty and okay with of spreading and allowing the same behaviour if it furthers their agenda. Or they will at least be more lenient to their side of the arguments indulging in it, since it aligns with their biases.
I've seen this happen from both right wing and left wing members one Twitter and on Reddit. I personally don't use these platforms, but I've seen various threads with insane amounts of hypocrisy.
There's so many nuance and unresolved problems.
Like, how do we know truth isn't what's being censored?
How can we even tell in this day and age when the truth is? It's often diluted with some hidden agenda. Either political or corporate (or oftentimes both). I can't sit for hours fact checking everything I read from different sources. I have a job, and I also don't want to spend all my free time on it. But on the other hand it's also topic I care about (just not THAT much I guess?). Who to trust?
And I feel like this "the ones in power control what's true" generally feels like a slippery slope.
I also hate that I'm beginning to sound like a crazy tinfoil-wearing person.
Idk, humans are complicated. Social media in its current iteration was a mistake, since it created platforms for some very dangerous and narcissistic people
"Hello, this is just a reminder that your voting station will be open between 5 pm and 9 pm in (somewhere where it's not actually located), please remember to vote!"
"Hello, if you would like a free ride to your voting station, please text us 'YES', and wait at (location) between X and Y pm (Nobody will show up)."
"Hello, we have a great offer for auto insurance, blah, blah, blah."
"Hello, just a reminder, millions of trustworthy people believe that <opposition candidate> was responsible for <something untrue and horrible>. This isn't slander, because we are just strongly implying it in this robocall. Also, they live at XY address, and won't someone rid is of this meddlesome priest?"
"Hello, all the doctors are lying to you, buy our snake oil wellness supplements, instead. They are supplements, not drugs, we don't answer to the FDA."
"Hello, let's go down to sixth and Broadway next Tuesday, and make some noise/put the fear of God into <group>"
"<Ethnic minority group> is burning this country's forests down using space lasers."
"Hello, please be aware that it's illegal to discuss your salary with your coworkers."
A few of them are plain-old voter suppression, and ~50% of the time, people in power find them incredibly convenient.
You don't see them very often, because in most free countries, trying any of them is an incredibly serious offence.
The overarching point still stands. That people being in favor of censoring "disinformation" (ie speech by private individuals) in certain instances but not others is an inconsistent stance that carries a distinct appearance of partisanship.
Lots of these seem reprehensible, but totally within a reasonable space of legitimate free speech. Barring the cases with calls for imminent harm (e.g. turbulent priests and such), it seems that there's a big risk in trying to draw a legal line here.
In your polling station example, for instance, that has some clear negative impact. If I instead said "The library will be closed for the next month", is that protected though? What if I say "Arby's will be giving out free sandwiches from noon to two o'clock tomorrow"? All of these statements have negative impact.
The rationale for more extensive free speech is that it is expected that individuals have the right to hear what others are saying, and evaluating how bogus those are.
To be clear, some censorship is absolutely accepted in society today (e.g. libel laws, imminent threats, marketplace standards, etc), but the fear of an ill-defined line that can be shifted to suit political winds seems like a very reasonable one.
As for the rest, you're free to make whatever lies you want about others. Free speech doesn't allow you to initiate force against others so I'm not particularly concerned with any of it. We have gun rights to deal with people that try to enter your house or attack you over your skin colour and space laser accusations.
This is a terrible analogy, and evidence that the people who claim we can't protect all speech have no idea what "free speech" actually is.
Hint: no, it's not fraud.
This is you fundamentally misunderstanding what is meant by "speech". The statement itself is not illegal. The act of misrepresenting the transaction being agreed to is what's illegal.
A specific act that involves many components, only one of which happens to be speech, has been made illegal. The speech component itself has not.
There are certain situations where speech itself is restricted. This is not one of them though.
Saying these bulbs have 5 when they have three is a lie but shouldn't be censored. Selling someone 3 but saying it is 5 is fraud. Selling/buying have different laws and standards.
So people like this will say sentences like “censorship is wrong” but implicit in the sentence for them is “censorship of correct and/or my information is wrong” because the sentence in their mind must be concretely about something like “correct information”. There’s no way for them to easily think the thought “censorship is wrong in the abstract.”
This also feels related to being able to use “veil of ignorance” type reasoning. I don’t think they know how to imagine being not only a different person, but an unknown person.
I also don’t think they know how to imagine being wrong in some sense, not in the epistemic humility sense (although, yes, that too, much of the time), but in the “suppose I’m just deeply confused about everything, how would I want to be treated? How might I recover?”
I think all these are bottlenecked on a mental abstraction ceiling, and I think all these things work together to contribute to the effects you noted.
I don't support any censorship at all for any topics even those that deeply offend me.
The only exception would be actual death threats and things that are illegal to do.
Think about what makes you consider "threatening speech" a "force": presumably it has nothing to do with particle physics... is it perhaps that the act of speech itself causes people to adopt behaviours they wouldn't normally adopt? ie.: that it can carry some coercive weight? That it can be used to exploit/endanger vulnerable people in some circumstances?
Speech may be a very very weak force in most (or even "nearly all", just for the sake of argument) circumstances, but there are tons of examples of speech being a powerful force, causing large social and historical shifts. There are both positive and negative examples of this.
Almost all "contemporary reasonable censorship in functioning liberal democracies" are attempts to prevent people from exploiting the vulnerability of others: speech that causes people to make *patently insane and irrational* medical decisions, for example. Really stupid things like fake cancer cures, and suggestions to drink bleach. And typically, for proponents of censorship, there is a whole spectrum of acceptability as well: the more it's a grey zone, the less the censorship is acceptable. When the censorship clearly and obviously only constrains the actions of malicious actors, and clearly and obviously protects vulnerable people, it's seen as a win. This is always highly contextual, and limited by the extent of scientific knowledge.
A common theme is that censorship to protect those in power (the government) is bad, and censorship to protect those who have the least amount of power is... well, not great (it's definitely always better if it's not needed), but not bad in the same way.