you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Free speech vs causing catastrophic harms. From the perspective of deaths caused, why is this different to firing shots into a crowd?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    The American conception of freedom of speech is all about personal rights, with no thought to personal responsibility. The reason freedom of speech is important is precisely because it's consequential. The idea of using free speech (a precious right) responsibly, if it ever existed, is gone now .

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago*

    The reason and justification for free speech is also about preventing tyranny and holding people accountable and allowing unusual dissenting voices to be heard.

    But a few now own all the means of communication, control and shape the speech and have practically become the government. There is no freedom of speech if so much of it is controlled and so much noise is blasted. Speech has become a commodity and if it's free it's worthless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    I can decide to turn off nonsense podcasts. I can't decide not to get shot if someone is shooting at me.

    A better metaphor might be screaming "that guy's got a gun" in a crowded theatre. I might be able to ignore it, but lots of people are going to believe it and act accordingly, and their reaction is probably not going to be good for anyone.

  • source
  • parent