Is it time to re-think free speech?

[FreeSpeech1789]

It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

And who will be the arbiter of what constitutes conspiracy theory and disinformation on your ministry of truth?

[Mina]

legal fees often get included.

The problem is uncertainty. Even if you're certain you can win a defamation case, if you aren't certain the damages awarded will be greater than the litigation costs, and you don't have the means to absorb a hit like that, you won't sue. When we don't have a minimum statutory damages amount, and we don't have a requirement that reasonable litigation costs be included in the award, litigating is just going to be too risky for someone without means. The reforms I'm talking about would make the threshold question only be whether or not you think you'll win. If you're confident you'll win, then you know you'll come out ahead by litigating, rather than you having to worry about whether the judge will award litigation costs (which is contrary to standard practice of each party bearing its own costs), and whether you'll be able to prove sufficient actual damages to make it worthwhile.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Well, I don't think the telegraph is really comparable to the internet.

If you don't think the internet has changed us radically in just a couple of decades, this thread probably has no interest for you. I think it has the potential to make things very dystopian, very quickly.

only if you're allowed to censor it.

very few things should be disallowed.

no direct calls to violence.

no doxxing.

no snuff films or kiddie porn

that's about it.

political speech you don't like is definitely allowed. sorry lefties.

you will never provide a list. because you want political censorship and are afraid to say it. so you will stay vague yet accusatory.

[Mina]

legal fees often get included.

The problem is uncertainty. Even if you're certain you can win a defamation case, if you aren't certain the damages awarded will be greater than the litigation costs, and you don't have the means to absorb a hit like that, you won't sue. When we don't have a minimum statutory damages amount, and we don't have a requirement that reasonable litigation costs be included in the award, litigating is just going to be too risky for someone without means. The reforms I'm talking about would make the threshold question only be whether or not you think you'll win. If you're confident you'll win, then you know you'll come out ahead by litigating, rather than you having to worry about whether the judge will award litigation costs (which is contrary to standard practice of each party bearing its own costs), and whether you'll be able to prove sufficient actual damages to make it worthwhile.

[Doc Dutch]

It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

Require all citizens to pass the Naturalization exam before they are allowed to access the full Internet and vote.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The problem is uncertainty. Even if you're certain you can win a defamation case, if you aren't certain the damages awarded will be greater than the litigation costs, and you don't have the means to absorb a hit like that, you won't sue. When we don't have a minimum statutory damages amount, and we don't have a requirement that reasonable litigation costs be included in the award, litigating is just going to be too risky for someone without means. The reforms I'm talking about would make the threshold question only be whether or not you think you'll win. If you're confident you'll win, then you know you'll come out ahead by litigating, rather than you having to worry about whether the judge will award litigation costs (which is contrary to standard practice of each party bearing its own costs), and whether you'll be able to prove sufficient actual damages to make it worthwhile.

you want to balloon nuisance litigation from blue-haired gender fluid woke malcontents.

no thank you.

you get free speech in return. now get online and make your case.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Require all citizens to pass the Naturalization exam before they are allowed to access the full Internet and vote.

no voting over the internet.

too amenable to fraud.

paper ballot only. offline only.

[FreeSpeech1789]

It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

Trump colluded with Russia, the Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, 15 days to slow the spread, no gain of function research at Wuhan, the coronavirus came from bat soup, we aren't teaching CRT to children, oh we are but it's a good thing and if you oppose it you're a white supremacist, we aren't teaching radical gender theory to children, oh we are but it's a good thing and if you oppose it you're a homophobic/transphobic bigot, we aren't targeting concerned parents with the intelligence agencies using anti-terrorist legislation, we don't support open borders, well we do but it's a good thing anyone who opposed it is a white supremacist, Kavanaugh is a gang rapist, twitter isn't censoring conservatives, oh God Elon wants to buy twitter how are we going to censor conservatives?

I'll think of more those are just off the top of my head.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

basically mina wants a "sue this creator" button on every youtube channel, facebook page, and tinder profile.

censorship through bot generated legal harrassment.

[Doc Dutch]

no voting over the internet.

too amenable to fraud.

paper ballot only. offline only.

Anyone who runs for national office has to be a military veteran.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Anyone who runs for national office has to be a military veteran.

now i know you're not a serious person....

[Doc Dutch]

now i know you're not a serious person....

You also think I'm an agent of the Jewish Global Conspiracy soooo....

[Mina]

you want to balloon nuisance litigation from blue-haired gender fluid woke malcontents.

Currently, we already get a lot of nuisance litigation, but it comes rom (mostly right wing) wealthy people, who can afford to lose cases just to try to chill free speech by forcing their critics to spend time and money defending. Deven Nunes and Donald Trump are two leading practitioners of that. What I'm talking about is leveling the playing field, so that nuisance litigants like that can't impoverish their critics with litigation costs, and so that those who have genuinely been harmed by defamation can be confident they'll come out ahead if they bring a suit.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Currently, we already get a lot of nuisance litigation, but it comes rom (mostly right wing) wealthy people, who can afford to lose cases just to try to chill free speech by forcing their critics to spend time and money defending. Deven Nunes and Donald Trump are two leading practitioners of that. What I'm talking about is leveling the playing field, so that nuisance litigants like that can't impoverish their critics with litigation costs, and so that those who have genuinely been harmed by defamation can be confident they'll come out ahead if they bring a suit.

yes. you want publicly subsidized nuisance litigation.

first you have to set the rules. you want to include politics, or information you simply disagree with.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

You also think I'm an agent of the Jewish Global Conspiracy soooo....

i keep telling you it's not jewish particularly.

you only have your idiotic "all criticism of the establishment is anti-semitism" frame that you learned at dumb spook school.