• @carbon_dated
    link
    7
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Expressing support for freedom of expression is normally a meaningless thing to do. Most people would agree that there’s nothing wrong about saying that abstract art is overrated, but most people would also agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (how creative of me) shouldn’t be allowed. The question isn’t whether free speech should be allowed, but where to draw the line. At what point does the harm of one’s speech outweigh the benefits of having a free exchange of ideas?

    The question one should ask oneself in this scenario now is “What harm do the antivax movement’s ideas do?”. The decision of not vaccinating against covid-19 can mean the deaths of many people who could otherwise have lived, including the deaths of people who have nothing to do with it (caused by the potential overcrowding of hospitals and appearance of dangerous covid strains we don’t have a vaccine for yet). Is freedom of speech really more valuable than the lives of people?

    One should also note that there’s a difference between the spread of dangerous opinions (subjective claims) and the spread of false and dangerous factual information (objective claims). The banning of the later is a lot more justified than the former, because bearing false witness does not contribute to a healthy discourse, on which democracy is built, but rather endangers it.

    but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves, as well as more ok with censorship.

    The slippery slope argument, which boils down to “If saying this is illegal, imagine what will happen in a few years! Restricting our speech will allow the restriction of even more speech, opening the way to the establishment of a totalitarian regime!”, does not hold up with reality. Would you say that most of Europe has become a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or is on its way towards it, just because denying the Holocaust and the expression of some other ideas is illegal?

    Edit: Obviously not the “sloppy slope argument”, but the slippery slope argument. XD

    • Dragon
      link
      2
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (how creative of me) shouldn’t be allowed

      I would say that if someone can be proven to have said fire while knowing full well that there wasn’t a fire, they could be prosecuted. But if they genuinely believed there was a fire, they should not. Also, it would be incredibly dangerous if you could somehow prevent anyone in a crowded building from shouting “fire” unless a fire was officially known to be occurring.

      The slippery slope argument

      The slippery slope fallacy fallacy. AKA the accusation of slippery slope to discredit an argument. It’s only a fallacy if you’re trying to form a syllogism. The fact is that some trends do get worse.

      Would you say that most of Europe has become a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or is on its way towards it, just because denying the Holocaust and the expression of some other ideas is illegal?

      Not at all. Just because some speech is banned doesn’t mean crazy amounts of speech will necessarily be banned. But sometimes you can see a trend toward something and be worried about it. Or worried about what it implies in a broader context.

      Overall, I think the danger is that if speech can be banned, you better trust the people banning it. And I don’t know of anyone I trust with that power over society. As an example, Youtube recently banned Russian opposition leader Navalny. Unfortunately, Youtube can and does censor content as it pleases, and there’s not much point being mad about it. The only solution is to support alternatives.