> That's your belief because "legitimate opinions". What is "legitimate opinions"? That is the crux.
I'd say this was a poor choice of words. All opinions are "legitimate" in that people actually hold them and believe in them.
> What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?
I don't think this is hard to measure, especially since we already have tests for what is protected speech and what is not in the US. For instance, we have federal laws that stop employers or landlords from exercizing their right to free speech when it involves discrimination against certain protected classes of people. Or slander/libel, or inciting violence.
> FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas.
This is not the case, as explained above and in an earlier comment. In the US we already have laws that limit free speech, yet result in a more free society.
> But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?
Yes, both of these things are good and would be considered good under just about any normative ethical framework.
> All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.
I agree with this fully, and would condemn anyone using censorship to remove free speech that isn't harmful. I advocate for similar positions in that I am generally ok with the government jailing people (which is an act of violence) that commit crimes. The right to jail people is an even more powerful tool than censorship, but most people are ok with this being done.
I'd say this was a poor choice of words. All opinions are "legitimate" in that people actually hold them and believe in them.
> What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?
I don't think this is hard to measure, especially since we already have tests for what is protected speech and what is not in the US. For instance, we have federal laws that stop employers or landlords from exercizing their right to free speech when it involves discrimination against certain protected classes of people. Or slander/libel, or inciting violence.
> FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas.
This is not the case, as explained above and in an earlier comment. In the US we already have laws that limit free speech, yet result in a more free society.
> But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?
Yes, both of these things are good and would be considered good under just about any normative ethical framework.
> All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.
I agree with this fully, and would condemn anyone using censorship to remove free speech that isn't harmful. I advocate for similar positions in that I am generally ok with the government jailing people (which is an act of violence) that commit crimes. The right to jail people is an even more powerful tool than censorship, but most people are ok with this being done.