Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Warmonger is to hawk as racist is to bigot.
Free speech is already limited. You can be punished for slander, libel, and hate speech. Private entities can and do censor. You can have a broadcast license revoked by the government for inappropriate content. Somehow, democracy has survived.
The question of how to lawfully yet not tyrannically limit free speech has a multitude of answers. One might even say that the answers partake of considerable nuance.
Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk
|
If someone wants to say that Hillary is better referred to as a hawk, rather than a warmonger, I'll listen to that argument.
There are good arguments against having slander and libel and slander rules. Either way, those are civil cases.
There should be no rules against hate speech, unless it specifically calls for specific violence.
Private entities can do what they want in terms of limiting freedom on their platforms (ie Twitter).
Government licensing of broadcasting should not exist (other than perhaps setting initial frequency auctions).
All of the above weaken democracy, they don't strengthen it.