One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 1155884 |
| Date de publication | 2019-06-14 19:45:51 (vue: 2019-06-15 02:01:27) |
| Titre | Censorship vs. the memes |
| Texte | The most annoying thing in any conversation is when people drop a meme bomb, some simple concept they've heard elsewhere in a nice package that they really haven't thought through, which takes time and nuance to rebut. These memes are often bankrupt of any meaning.When discussing censorship, which is wildly popular these days, people keep repeating these same memes to justify it:you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theaterbut this speech is harmfulKarl Popper's Paradox of Tolerancecensorship/free-speech don't apply to private organizationsTwitter blocks and free speechThis post takes some time to discuss these memes, so I can refer back to it later, instead of repeating the argument every time some new person repeats the same old meme.You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theaterThis phrase was first used in the Supreme Court decision Schenck v. United States to justify outlawing protests against the draft. Unless you also believe the government can jail you for protesting the draft, then the phrase is bankrupt of all meaning.In other words, how can it be used to justify the thing you are trying to censor and yet be an invalid justification for censoring those things (like draft protests) you don't want censored?What this phrase actually means is that because it's okay to suppress one type of speech, it justifies censoring any speech you want. Which means all censorship is valid. If that's what you believe, just come out and say "all censorship is valid".But this speech is harmful or invalidThat's what everyone says. In the history of censorship, nobody has ever wanted to censor good speech, only speech they claimed was objectively bad, invalid, unreasonable, malicious, or otherwise harmfulIt's just that everybody has different definitions of what, actually is bad, harmful, or invalid. It's like the movie theater quote. For example, China's constitution proclaims freedom of speech, yet the government blocks all mention of the Tienanmen Square massacre because it's harmful. It's "Great Firewall of China" is famous for blocking most of the content of the Internet that the government claims harms its citizens. I put some photos of the Tiananmen anniversary mass vigil in #Hongkong last night onto Wechat and my account has been suspended for “spreading malicious rumours”. The #China of today... pic.twitter.com/F6e2exsgGE- Stephen McDonell (@StephenMcDonell) June 5, 2019At least in case of movie theaters, the harm of shouting "fire" is immediate and direct. In all these other cases, the harm is many steps removed. Many want to censor anti-vaxxers, because their speech kills children. But the speech doesn't, the virus does. By extension, those not getting vaccinations may harm peopl |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | about 1980s about account affected again all also among ancient anything apply are aren arguing arguments bankrupt been believe big block blocks business but can censor censorship christian cincinati concerns conclusionthe content decades different doesn don duties free from get groups had harmful have hearing here his ignore individuals like likewise lyrics made making meme memes new nonsense not object obscene office official old one only other others others involved over own particular parts people post president preventing prevents previous private pro public related repeats restricting rome same see seeing separate show simultaneously some somehow song speak speech speechthe stop stopping stuff such sure tasked that them then there these thing those thousands today trying twitter uses want when which who wkrp worms years your |
| Tags | |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.