this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
5 readers
28 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm more concerned about book bans than giving misinformation a loudspeaker. I used to be what you would call a "free speech absolutist". No longer - we've seen "free speech" weaponized in abhorrent ways.
Once again, my position and my post were non-partisan.
I am 100% against book bans. I'm 100% against 'suppression of ideas on social media'.
I also think the cure feeds the disease. The second someone in authority says 'you musn't say that' or 'you musn't believe that' or 'that idea is dangerous', you create the conditions for weaponized misinformation to flourish. Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. The instant you classify a position as unacceptable, a whole host of people (many of them stupid) will adopt that position for no reason other than that they were told not to. They'll say 'the establishment told me not to do this, there must be something here that I want that they want for themselves'.
Look at coronavirus. Yes there was TONS of weaponized misinformation. But the way our culture made it unacceptable to even question the status quo helped spread that. Republicans (and idiots) accused the government of a power grab, treading on civil liberties, using a fancy flu as an excuse to grab power. I don't personally agree with that take, but if you suddenly aren't allowed to say or share it, that puts a LOT of legitimacy to the 'trying to grab power' argument. First they come for your freedom of movement or freedom to make your own medical decisions, next they come for your freedom of speech when you try to say otherwise!
I honestly believe the suppression efforts, if anything, only amplified the message they were trying to suppress.
And I'd point out- if the government has the authority to mute a loudspeaker, then what happens next time when the guy with the loudspeaker is correct? If we make suppression of speech a legitimate government power, who's to say it will only be used for good?
I don't think I mentioned any parties. While we're here, though, without a doubt only one of them seems to be pushing for book bans, banning drag (free speech), restricting what people can do with their own bodies, make-believe legal cases with ultimate authority, etc all the while whining about the freedom to spread deadly lies. This is entirely partisan - this people the article discusses. Partisan. They are so extreme that I'm not falling for this being about the first amendment.