Again, it was government that led to censorship on social media in the first place, so it makes little sense to me that only an act of legislation and some legal precedent can fix it.

We've always held that dangerous speech should be censored.

For a long time we thought some people should be slaves. The prevalence of the denial of some right is certainly not an argument against the right itself.

Indeed. Hence fetish: an object believed to have special power to protect.

Free speech is not an object and no one believes it has magical powers, or at least you haven’t shown otherwise. At any rate, any argument against free speech is an argument for censorship, so maybe we can skip the word association and get right to arguing why speech ought to be censored.

We've always held that dangerous speech should be censored.

For a long time we thought some people should be slaves. The prevalence of the denial of some right is certainly not an argument against the right itself. — NOS4A2

Right, so we aren't entering into new territory, as in "so long free speech.". It's just slavery as usual.

This is new territory, and it’s just as outrageous as the last.

This is new territory, and it’s just as outrageous as the last. — NOS4A2

Are all the territories outrageous?

Hmm. Much as I wish it were true, I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Police power as defined by Chief Justice Marshall is certainly broad enough to counter the mass dissemination of false information during a pandemic. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/property-and-police-power

Yes. When is yelling "Vaccines aren't safe" when they are safe, the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in the theater when there is no fire?

Hey, I've got a novel idea: Hows about we let big government shut the yellers down, then the yellers can sue big government in the third branch of government under Article III of the Constitution; then we let a judge decide, based upon all the evidence, whether big government reasonably relied upon the science?

Of course there is weakness in my proposal: How do we know the courts aren't secretly part of the deep state? Even those judges appointed by Trump are probably under threat (and their families) if they don't do the bidding of the Bilderbergs. They will be fried by Jewish space lasers if they don't comply.

Wait, let me get my looting cloths.

Yes. When is yelling "Vaccines aren't safe" when they are safe, the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in the theater when there is no fire? — James Riley

I don't recall making this strawman argument, so I don't think I'll be defending it. Really, the Feds have only complained publicly, they aren't shutting down social media. Social media has elected to censor and fact check; denying them the right to do so would be more of an infringement than the complaints made here. But, I'm bias, if it was my uneducated fever dreams being shut down, then I might have a different position.

Like Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro, totalitarian governments abide by the dictum: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."

This is exactly what the Biden Administration, using the cover of the issue of Covid vaccination, is seeking to accomplish right now in the USA in intimate cooperation with the leadership and censorship activities of Facebook, Twitter, etc. — charles ferraro

It could be interesting to compare the level of concentration of power of the US government
with what the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century possessed. Likely, the task is not workable. Yet, despite the enormous increase of the means of social control, neither most people perceive the Biden administration as totalitarian or authoritarian, nor are these views accepted in academia.

Is anyone here defending free speech for lies, especially big and dangerous lies?

I don't recall making this strawman argument, so I don't think I'll be defending it. — Cheshire

No need. It wasn't really straw man, but rather, a natural extension of the Chief Justice Marshal reasoning you put up and with which I agree.

No need. It wasn't really straw man, but rather, a natural extension of the Chief Justice Marshal reasoning you put up and with which I agree. — James Riley

Ok, that's fair, I must have misattributed the context.

Ok, that's fair, I must have misattributed the context. — Cheshire

Yeah, I'm not always clear when I agree with someone. I get carried off in anticipatory argument, sarcasm and whatnot. :blush:

It does not matter if it is effective or not. What matters is the ethics and politics of the situation, whether the state should determine what can and cannot be said, and so on. — NOS4A2

Well, we have a special situation where politicians tried to use a public health crisis as a political football. So, now we have a group whose political identity is tied to the denial of a pandemic. So, the suppression, if it can be called that, of inaccurate medical information is intertwined with political positions. The ethics of public health out weigh the ethics of politically driven misinformation. They could probably be quite a bit stricter and still pass based on the exceptions for Police Power to the ends of public health.

And I disagree. If the censorship is "not effective" then one isn't being censored; are they?

:100:

SO do you folk agree that opposing the vaccine is a bad thing?

I mean, do oyu honestly think that folk ought not get vaccinated?

Why? — Banno

The problem is that the whole vaccination public discourse is so superficial, it's scientism. And hostile. On both sides, the provaccination side as well as the antivaccination side.

While it's understandable that people are exhausted from the pandemic, are both afraid and desperate for a solution, this still doesn't warrant that critical thinking and science be kicked to the curb.

But I'm afraid that this is a lost cause, and that we're left to soundbites and non-communication on both sides.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights recognize precisely that this is NOT a perfect world. That's the exact reason why both exist, viz., to try to specify precisely what must be protected from being infringed upon, or even cancelled by, totalitarian regimes of the left or the right.

As the saying goes: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will respectfully refrain from insulting or otherwise demeaning your character or belittling your intellect and protect, to the very end, your right to say it."

If this, in your opinion is a form of ranting, or not knowing what I am talking about, then so be it.

Well, we have a special situation where politicians tried to use a public health crisis as a political football. So, now we have a group whose political identity is tied to the denial of a pandemic. So, the suppression, if it can be called that, of inaccurate medical information is intertwined with political positions. The ethics of public health out weigh the ethics of politically driven misinformation. They could probably be quite a bit stricter and still pass based on the exceptions for Police Power to the ends of public health.

And I disagree. If the censorship is "not effective" then one isn't being censored; are they?

When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue. Authoritarianism isn’t the only way to educate and prepare the public for threats to public health, but our so-called liberal democracies have proven that they are willing to resort to such tactics.

When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue. Authoritarianism isn’t the only way to educate and prepare the public for threats to public health, but our so-called liberal democracies have proven that they are willing to resort to such tactics. — NOS4A2

No, it becomes a political issue when the idiot president pretends it doesn't exist cause it makes him look bad. What you are mentioning are called legal issues covered by due process. The Right tried to do the same thing with civil rights after the world watched a man be murdered in the streets and it blew up in their face.

as well as the antivaccination side. — baker

And just what exactly is that side? Might it be the same people who believe in breathing underwater?

When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue. — NOS4A2

Is that even in the hopper? Just asking. If it's not, then I think some folks might be getting all spun up by Tucker Carlson and other founts of truth and wisdom. Oh, maybe it's the "slippery slope" argument?

I wonder if I should report this thread and this site for not complying with the Biden Administration executive orders on freedom of speech restrictions. I'm sure it's just an oversight, but we'll all be nice and happy once the Biden Administration coopts the Facebook/Twitter monopoly to force thephilosophyforum.com (based in San Francisco, CA via Cloudfare) to censor inconvenient opinions in compliance with the current policy of violating fundamental liberties.

There are other countries in the world, and conservative, liberal and socialist politicians employed the same authoritarianism. The only place I can think of that didn’t was Sweden, and they aren’t exactly the most right-leaning government on Earth. I’m not really sure what you’re getting at, in any case.

I don’t get the question.

I wonder if I should report this thread and this site for not complying with the Biden Administration executive orders on freedom of speech restrictions. — InPitzotl

Do it. Where's a .gov link that supports the existence of anything you mentioned. Executive actions are part of the public record.

I don’t get the question. — NOS4A2

You said: "When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue." [Emphasis added.]

I agree with the sentiment but was curious if any politicians and their health officials were actually doing that, or even thinking about it? I'm not aware of it in the U.S. but I suppose it could be happening somewhere where you have an interest.

Governments around the entire world have seized unprecedented control over the daily lives of their citizens. The restriction of movement, border closures, economic intervention, lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, police checkpoints, curfews—all of this has been occurring for quite some time now. I thought it was common knowledge at this point.

PERIOD!!!!!! — charles ferraro

Exclamation.

I thought it was common knowledge at this point. — NOS4A2

I guess I live a sheltered life. I certainly have not seen the "politicians and their health officials [] shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, [or] rule by decree."

I see people running their sucks on the interwebs like never before. No one has been rounded up or put on the trains. I did see China welding some people's doors shut but, well, that's China. I don't think the control that governments around the world have seized is "unprecedented" by any stretch of the imagination. Seems about the norm to me.

The restriction of movement is cool if it's a nationalist thing, but not so cool if it's to prevent disease from spreading? Even Trump was closing boarders and I only heard the left whining about it. I don't see economic intervention, unless you mean bailing out those who need it instead of banks and those who don't. In fact, I've just seen the accelerated transfer of wealth that's been going on for years.

I have heard of 600,000 dead in the U.S. and I attribute that largely to the failure of government to do exactly what you seem to claim they are doing. People have been partying and flouting "recommendations" since day one. And now we have variants and pass-through viruses. All this seems to bely your fears. All I've personally witnessed is pleading from government.

I have yet to see stats on deaths and illnesses from countries that either had stricter lock-down policies, or who have an educated or socially-oriented population, but even then, as we have been told since the beginning, it won't help if only some play be the rules. Any poor countries who can't get the vaccine, or those rich ones with inconsiderate, selfish populations, will defeat the protocols because the disease does not respect borders. It just takes one asymptomatic asshole to spread it.

Anyway, I do admit to being sheltered. I'm socially isolated and don't go to town much. But when I do go, all the "necessities" seem to be there, save shit paper, and even that is back to norm.

Where's a .gov link that supports the existence of anything you mentioned. — Cheshire

I think you're falling prey to Poe's Law. To me, this thread is just a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense; I read "This is exactly what the Biden Administration, using the cover of the issue of Covid vaccination, is seeking to accomplish right now in the USA in intimate cooperation with the leadership and censorship activities of Facebook, Twitter, etc." as saying that Biden is Hitler because Facebook won't let me post Covid-19 conspiracy theories on their site.