How much longer are we going to allow this “free speech” that is just blatant lies and harmful. Like at one point speech stops being free, and thats when it is fucking harmful. I have a great uncle I would have met otherwise had the Nazis not been fucking around in Europe. We have a rapidly growing intellectual problem.
I’m Canadian and we have hate speech laws. You can say your backwards ass bullshit, but if you call for the death of people like she did in her comment, she would be charged.
You can write reasonable legislation that illegalizes calls for harm like her’s (“millions of jews should die”). Because this is just hate speech and misinformation. We can verify the Holocaust happened. If this people with influence want to run around saying it did not we should have legal recourse to shut them up and make them pay for damages. Now we have countless idiots idling around thinking the Holocaust was fake. Speech has consequences, it is mever truly free.
The laws we have require an imminent threat against a specific person.
We need new laws to tamp down the blatant lying.
If like to see a law that everyone gets one official internet account and it’s tied to your real identity, and you can still post anonymously but anything posted anonymously has no username attached to it. Just “anonymous.”
If you want likes or comments or followers, or if you want to have any kind of identity at all attached to your post, it must be your real identity.
That’s a terrible idea from a privacy standpoint, not to mention that absolute nightmare of giving the government to authority to identify and prosecute liars, whomever they deem them to be.
Not what I said. With my magic wand, you can still lie, anonymously or not anonymously.
If it’s anonymous, you have no way to gain followers or be seen as any different from anyone else shouting anonymously into the internet void. There’s no link to your name, no profile, no way to even see one anonymous poster’s prior posts/content.
If you post lies using your account, your lies are attached to your real name and identify and you at least cannot lie about who you are, because everyone only gets one internet account, like a federally issued unique token that you must input when making an account on any website. Again, in this scenario, I have magic wand. I could certainly be done tech wise, maybe with biometrics.
I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but that’s what I see happening when you implement “laws to tamp down the blatant lying”. Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I don’t trust any sort of diet social credit score.
The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects lies, except in narrow circumstances, such as when there’s a duty from a trust relationship between the parties or from a statute or contract.
False speech is a valuable tool of rhetoric and entertainment and it’s in that sense it should be protected. When used unfairly in the context of a power imbalance, in bad faith, for the purpose of benefiting the speaker by manipulating listeners to their detriment, such speech has as much First Amendment value as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater: none.
I have no problem criminalizing and imposing civil liability for such speech, let a jury decide what’s true and false, whether it had any morally defensible social value.
How much longer are we going to allow this “free speech” that is just blatant lies and harmful. Like at one point speech stops being free, and thats when it is fucking harmful. I have a great uncle I would have met otherwise had the Nazis not been fucking around in Europe. We have a rapidly growing intellectual problem.
I’m Canadian and we have hate speech laws. You can say your backwards ass bullshit, but if you call for the death of people like she did in her comment, she would be charged.
What would be your recommended action to this “free speech”?
You can write reasonable legislation that illegalizes calls for harm like her’s (“millions of jews should die”). Because this is just hate speech and misinformation. We can verify the Holocaust happened. If this people with influence want to run around saying it did not we should have legal recourse to shut them up and make them pay for damages. Now we have countless idiots idling around thinking the Holocaust was fake. Speech has consequences, it is mever truly free.
Calling for violence against people already is a crime. Perhaps we just need to enforce the laws we already have?
The laws we have require an imminent threat against a specific person.
We need new laws to tamp down the blatant lying.
If like to see a law that everyone gets one official internet account and it’s tied to your real identity, and you can still post anonymously but anything posted anonymously has no username attached to it. Just “anonymous.”
If you want likes or comments or followers, or if you want to have any kind of identity at all attached to your post, it must be your real identity.
That’s a terrible idea from a privacy standpoint, not to mention that absolute nightmare of giving the government to authority to identify and prosecute liars, whomever they deem them to be.
Where’d you get that, prosecuting liars?
Not what I said. With my magic wand, you can still lie, anonymously or not anonymously.
If it’s anonymous, you have no way to gain followers or be seen as any different from anyone else shouting anonymously into the internet void. There’s no link to your name, no profile, no way to even see one anonymous poster’s prior posts/content.
If you post lies using your account, your lies are attached to your real name and identify and you at least cannot lie about who you are, because everyone only gets one internet account, like a federally issued unique token that you must input when making an account on any website. Again, in this scenario, I have magic wand. I could certainly be done tech wise, maybe with biometrics.
I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but that’s what I see happening when you implement “laws to tamp down the blatant lying”. Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I don’t trust any sort of diet social credit score.
I get you.
The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects lies, except in narrow circumstances, such as when there’s a duty from a trust relationship between the parties or from a statute or contract.
False speech is a valuable tool of rhetoric and entertainment and it’s in that sense it should be protected. When used unfairly in the context of a power imbalance, in bad faith, for the purpose of benefiting the speaker by manipulating listeners to their detriment, such speech has as much First Amendment value as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater: none.
I have no problem criminalizing and imposing civil liability for such speech, let a jury decide what’s true and false, whether it had any morally defensible social value.