Is there anyone here who supports to restriction of speech? If not, is there anyone who can play devil’s advocate to argue their position? I’m curious if there is any merit and why anyone would hold such a view.
In Europe it’s against the law to challenge the holocaust and one can serve years in prison over it. I think the reason is that it disrespects the victims by making them liars, like telling Buzz Aldrin he didn’t walk on the moon and getting punched for it:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlbYOKSSaIE[/youtube]
(Now that I watched the video, the fact that he didn’t pacify the guy by swearing on his bible is a bit suspicious. Is he afraid to swear on it? Would he have to swear on it in court? If he would swear on it in court, then wouldn’t it be easier to swear on it to make the guy leave rather than making such protest followed by slugging the guy? Opinions on that would be cool.)
So should we make a law that prohibits folks from making conspiracies about the moonwalking? Why not? Why allow disrespect of the astronauts who risked life and limb?
Heck, why stop there. It’s a slippery slope, right? We can slide on down to the crime of hurting people’s feelings. “You called me a name so you can go to jail!”
Why not outlaw climate denial? After all, our earth is at stake, right? “Life in prison for advocating the destruction of earth!”
Where does it end and who gets to decide?
Why must truth be guarded so rabidly?
Freedom of speech is the only mechanism for establishing truth, so censoring speech for the sake of truth is therefore the undermining of its very own underpinning and it the philosophical equivalent of sawing off the limb you’re sitting on. It’s madness!
“Beware when fighting monsters that you don’t become a monster.” As soon as we embark on a crusade of righteousness we’ve become monsters: armed clergy.