Checking. Fact Checking.

Bonus points if it’s a fundamentally amoral idea that just happens to be incorrect in your imagined scenario.

If you’re thinking of something in particular, why don’t you just share it? It’s time for me to get ready to go to school.

I’m not thinking of anything in particular. I’m trying to gauge the limit, if there is any, on your stance that fact checking and censorship is always bad.

Child trafficking isn’t an example because child trafficking isn’t an idea, it’s a criminal act. A fact checker doesn’t put a warning on an illicit picture of the child, because there’s no fact to check in that situation. That’s a matter for the FBI to deal with, and arrest and charge the people involved, not a fact checker.

Can you imagine any scenario yourself where the danger is so great of the spread of an idea, or an untrue statement, that you would come around and say “yes, in this scenario we want fact checkers / we want this idea stopped”?

It could be ANYTHING. As long as it’s an idea. It could be misinformation about yourself - if somehow a rumor started across the internet that Ichthus77 is , and you knew it wasn’t true but its spread was negatively impacting your life, should that be stopped, censored, fact checked?

What about ideas that aren’t about specific people? Is there anything that’s so dangerous, in your opinion, that you can imagine?

I didn’t read all of that (got hw sorry), but I would say a good thing to consult would be US Supreme Court case history on free speech, but don’t hold me to that. I would want to consult cases where it is or isn’t found to be discriminatory to prevent free speech/expression — even for a business & its nonpaying customers/users. I mean, should we have to buy a voice (ohhhhh don’t get me stahted!!!)? It should be applied across the board no matter what worldview the business is. Example: businesses run by or who have customers who are Muslim or Christian—same treatment expected for/from both? Are we sensitive to all of our business owners and to all of their customers in a fair manner? It seems to me we are not when it comes to social media. Etc.

If we correctly interpret the constitution, …imo…, our government at any level would fashion NO weapon it does not allow its citizens to likewise fashion, carry, and utilize in order to overthrow its rogue, oppressive government.

…but what do I know.

But I’m not asking what the supreme court thinks, I’m asking what YOU think. The supreme court doesn’t decide what’s right and wrong, what’s good and bad, they’re only there to interpret the laws.

There are many people who value free speech in America, and every individual potentially has a different place where they draw a line, where they say “past this line, the damage is too great, the consequences too dire, to value free speech over human lives or human suffering”.

I live in England, I have a very conservative friend, and he values free speech dearly, and I was surprised to learn that he fully agrees with fact checking and censorship in the case of COVID, because that’s past the line he draws in the sand.

So the question for you is to tease out where your line is, if you have one. Maybe you don’t have one, which is a valid position. Maybe there’s no situation, no danger, even up to the danger of the destruction of mankind or the entire planet, that justifies fact checking and censorship.

But the supreme court can’t tell me where your line is. Only you can

I already expressed what I think in the original post.

So there’s no situation, no matter how dire, no matter how destructive the consequences might be, that justifies censorship of ideas or fact-checking warnings, have I understood your position correctly?

You didn’t like the example I gave of child exploitation.

I am not sure what you’re looking for here…

Child exploitation isn’t a question of free speech. Someone who is a free speech absolutist can think child abusers should be punished, the two questions have really nothing to do with each other.

The question at hand in your thread is a question of free speech, not freedom to abuse children. Which is why my posts have centered around the spread of ideas, and not abusing children. I don’t see how the child abuse situation is relevent to the question of free speech.

So if we focus on speech, which is apparently what your original post is about, then my interest here is teasing out the limit for you, if there is any.

You haven’t expressed a limit yet to where you think freedom of speech might end. Your original post is only for free speech, with no hint at where the limit to that position is, so if you keep pointing me back to that without offering any clarity I can only conclude that you’re trying to communicate that you’re a free speech absolutist.

Which is an absolutely fine position to hold, I don’t think it’s an obviously ethically wrong theory and I don’t think someone is clearly incorrect for taking that stance. I’m just looking for clarity here. You’re the one arguing for complete free speech here, I’m just asking “how much?”

A pedophile who thinks they merely have a sexual preference may disagree with you that censoring them violates their free speech.

Freedom (power) is a moral issue, so I’m not sure why you’re drawing those distinctions.

Even Nietzsche kept “bad/good” (cuz bad=evil, but anywhayz).

I think a pedophile should be free to make their case so that people (properly educated/encouraged to wield the natural ability of their brains) can jump on them and freely provide counter arguments and alternatives to save pedophiles out of the mud, but I don’t think a pedophile should be allowed to exploit children on social media. And it is very clear what the fact checkers are focused on, and it is not removing instances of child exploitation, OR encouraging/educating us on how to do OUR OWN fact checking/loosing.

For example… stuff a year old gets flagged. You know what this teaches??? Open your eyes.

Bad/good does not translate to good/evil.

It’s why origami’s take no Hitler contradicts his luv of Nietzsche.
Beyond Good & Evil…but these hypocrites conceal their Abrahamic addiction with a change in terminology, such as they replace “evil” with the term '“insane”.
But I digress.

A paedophile would perish in nature.
He is a product of sheltering.
Mutations compounding, manifesting all kinds of sexual issues - fetishes.
“Spiteful Mutants” Dutton calls them.
I call them Desperate Degenerates.

No, how one applies power is a moral issue…and only if one is dependent no a group.
True omnipotence would be indifferent.
Your convictions contradict themselves.
An omnipotent being would not care…it is a weakness contradicting its omnipotence.
Do you care ab out ants?

Caring indicates dependence, weakness.

You don’t understand why I’m drawing a distinction between speech and other crimes, in a conversation about free speech absolutism?

If I punched Joe Biden in the face, I would be arrested and charged with battery. I wouldn’t be charged because of the IDEA of punching Joe in the face, I’d be charged because I actually punched him in the face. So that has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with punching someone in the face.

On the other hand, if I made an internet post saying “someone ought to punch him in the face”, and I got arrested and tried for that, now THAT’S a question about free speech, and the limits of it.

When you brought up child exploitation, you brought it up in a context where it wasn’t about speech, but just about actually abusing an actual child. But this conversation is about speech, free speech, and the limit to it. I distinguish between speech and other harmful crimes because saying an idea is different from punching someone or actively harming children.

You think people who harm children should go to prison. Good. That doesn’t have anything to do with free speech. Unless you’re talking about putting people in prison because they talked about the idea of harming children, without actually harming one. Is that what you’re trying to say? Free speech should be limited if someone is trying to spread the idea that harming children is acceptable?

Have you considered why you find paedophilia reprehensible, just as I do?
Is it because of god, or like iamastupidcunt, do you think it is a moral rule imposed upon us by men?

There’s an evolutionary reason.

FJ, I already answered your post with my last two replies.

LK, I already answered your post with my last two replies in the other two threads that we’re having conversations in this morning.

I need coffee.

You still for some reason keep taking about exploiting children, and not free speech. But that’s a complete subject change. Someone who goes to prison for exploiting children isn’t going to prison because of their speech, but because they actually exploited actual children.

So I think your actual position in regards to the limits of free speech is still incredibly ambiguous.

Sit with my last two posts today and tell me if you see better by the end of it.

I don’t. It still seems like you are dragging the conversation into being about the act of exploiting a child, because that’s the word you keep using. But the act of exploiting a child isn’t a matter of free speech. An illiterate mute can exploit a child with no speech at all, so speech isn’t the issue.

Is this the speech you’re talking about? So not any specific act of literal exploitation of a real child, but instead a pedo sharing his opinion online about his own psychology, correct?

You believe that a pedo sharing that sort of opinion online should be silenced, and the reason you think that is because you think the spread of that idea might be dangerous to children in the long term?

That’s fair.

So there are ideas which shouldn’t be spread because of the harm they might cause. Is it just limited to sexual harm of children? What about sexual harm of adults? Or non sexual harm?

What if some people were spreading an idea that you knew to be false, that if enough people accepted, would result in the deaths of thousands, or millions, or extinction? Would any of those types of scenarios stack up against a pedophile expressing what he thinks about his own psychology?

signs “are you joking‽” in sign language