Yeah, a bunch of speech is restricted. Restricting speech isn’t in itself bad, it’s generally only a problem when it’s used to oppress political opposition. But copyrights, hate speech, death threats, doxxing, personal data, defense related confidentiality… Those are all kinds of speech that are strictly regulated when they’re not outright banned, for the express purpose of guaranteeing safety, and it’s generally accepted.
In this case it’s not even restricting the content of speech. Only a very special kind of medium that consists in generating speech through an unreliably understood method of rock carving is restricted, and only when applied to what is argued as a sensitive subject. The content of the speech isn’t even in question. You can’t carve a cyber security text in the flesh of an unwilling human either, or even paint it on someone’s property, but you can just generate exactly the same speech with a pen and paper and it’s a-okay.
If your point isn’t that the unrelated scenarios in your original comment are somehow the next step, I still don’t see how that’s bad.
Oh yeah? And which restriction of free speech illustrating my previous comment would is even remotely controversial, do you think?
I’ve actually stated explicitly before why I believe it is a thing: to protect political dissent from being criminalized. Why do you think it is a thing?
And which restriction of free speech illustrating my previous comment would is even remotely controversial, do you think?
All of these regularly cause controversy.
I’ve actually stated explicitly before why I believe it is a thing: to protect political dissent from being criminalized. Why do you think it is a thing?
That’s not quite what I meant. Take the US 2nd amendment; the right to bear arms. It is fairly unique. But freedom of expression is ubiquitous as a guaranteed right (on paper, obviously). Why are ideas from the 1st amendment ubiquitous 200 years later, but not from the 2nd?
My answer is, because you cannot have a prosperous, powerful nation without freedom of information. For one, you can’t have high-tech without an educated citizenry sharing knowledge. I don’t know of any country that considers freedom of expression limited to political speech. It’s one of the more popular types of speech to cause persecution. Even in the more liberal countries, calls to overthrow the government or secede tends to be frowned on.
Do they really? Carving into people’s flesh causes controversy? The US sure is wild.
Even if some of my examples do cause controversy in the US sometimes (I do realize you lot tend to fantasize free speech as an absolute rather than a freedom that - although very important - is always weighed against all the other very important rights like security and body autonomy) they do stand as examples of limits to free speech that are generally accepted by the large majority. Enough that those controversies don’t generally end up in blanket decriminalization of mutilation and vandalism. So I still refute that my stance is not “the default opinion”. It may be rarely formulated this way, but I posit that the absolutism you defend is, in actuality, the rarer opinion of the two.
The example of restriction of free speech your initial comment develops upon is a fringe consequence of the law in question and doesn’t even restrict the information from circulating, only the tools you can use to write it. My point is that this is not at all uncommon in law, even in american law, and that it does not, in fact, prevent information from circulating.
The fact that you fail to describe why circulation of information is important for a healthy society makes your answer really vague. The single example you give doesn’t help : if scientific and tech-related information were free to circulate scientists wouldn’t use sci-hub. And if it were the main idea, universities would be free in the US (the country that values free speech the most) rather than in European countries that have a much more relative viewpoint on it. The well known “everything is political” is the reason why you don’t restrict free speech to explicitly political statements. How would you draw the line by law? It’s easier and more efficient to make the right general, and then create exceptions on a case-by-case basis (confidential information, hate speech, calls for violence, threats of murder…)
Should confidential information be allowed to circulate to Putin from your ex-President then?
Yeah, a bunch of speech is restricted. Restricting speech isn’t in itself bad, it’s generally only a problem when it’s used to oppress political opposition. But copyrights, hate speech, death threats, doxxing, personal data, defense related confidentiality… Those are all kinds of speech that are strictly regulated when they’re not outright banned, for the express purpose of guaranteeing safety, and it’s generally accepted.
In this case it’s not even restricting the content of speech. Only a very special kind of medium that consists in generating speech through an unreliably understood method of rock carving is restricted, and only when applied to what is argued as a sensitive subject. The content of the speech isn’t even in question. You can’t carve a cyber security text in the flesh of an unwilling human either, or even paint it on someone’s property, but you can just generate exactly the same speech with a pen and paper and it’s a-okay.
If your point isn’t that the unrelated scenarios in your original comment are somehow the next step, I still don’t see how that’s bad.
That’s certainly not the default opinion. Why do you think freedom of expression is a thing?
Oh yeah? And which restriction of free speech illustrating my previous comment would is even remotely controversial, do you think?
I’ve actually stated explicitly before why I believe it is a thing: to protect political dissent from being criminalized. Why do you think it is a thing?
All of these regularly cause controversy.
That’s not quite what I meant. Take the US 2nd amendment; the right to bear arms. It is fairly unique. But freedom of expression is ubiquitous as a guaranteed right (on paper, obviously). Why are ideas from the 1st amendment ubiquitous 200 years later, but not from the 2nd?
My answer is, because you cannot have a prosperous, powerful nation without freedom of information. For one, you can’t have high-tech without an educated citizenry sharing knowledge. I don’t know of any country that considers freedom of expression limited to political speech. It’s one of the more popular types of speech to cause persecution. Even in the more liberal countries, calls to overthrow the government or secede tends to be frowned on.
Do they really? Carving into people’s flesh causes controversy? The US sure is wild.
Even if some of my examples do cause controversy in the US sometimes (I do realize you lot tend to fantasize free speech as an absolute rather than a freedom that - although very important - is always weighed against all the other very important rights like security and body autonomy) they do stand as examples of limits to free speech that are generally accepted by the large majority. Enough that those controversies don’t generally end up in blanket decriminalization of mutilation and vandalism. So I still refute that my stance is not “the default opinion”. It may be rarely formulated this way, but I posit that the absolutism you defend is, in actuality, the rarer opinion of the two.
The example of restriction of free speech your initial comment develops upon is a fringe consequence of the law in question and doesn’t even restrict the information from circulating, only the tools you can use to write it. My point is that this is not at all uncommon in law, even in american law, and that it does not, in fact, prevent information from circulating.
The fact that you fail to describe why circulation of information is important for a healthy society makes your answer really vague. The single example you give doesn’t help : if scientific and tech-related information were free to circulate scientists wouldn’t use sci-hub. And if it were the main idea, universities would be free in the US (the country that values free speech the most) rather than in European countries that have a much more relative viewpoint on it. The well known “everything is political” is the reason why you don’t restrict free speech to explicitly political statements. How would you draw the line by law? It’s easier and more efficient to make the right general, and then create exceptions on a case-by-case basis (confidential information, hate speech, calls for violence, threats of murder…)
Should confidential information be allowed to circulate to Putin from your ex-President then?
You are apparently mistaking me for someone else.
Really you’re not from the US? I was so positive. Sorry for assuming