The argument: If we pass a law saying "[some powerful entity] cannot do Y" it will be applied to X. That applies to every single thing we regulate. In fact, people in power *do* try to use laws (too) broadly for almost any law we do pass.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
Again, I believe you are misrepresenting what I am saying, and there are plenty of laws to which that does not apply. But my point stands that such laws that are directed at speech will be misused.
2 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @mmasnick
You can make that argument, but not because any law one makes to regulate X will be applied to something broader or something someone doesn't like. That particular broad argument applies to all regulation (and actually occurs, too, but we don't stop because of that).
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Write a legal provision that can only be used against your definition of hate speech, and that a qanon prosecutor / judge can't use against you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Almost no regulation that I cannot make argument against, though. It's not even all false. Every other country on the planet, including almost every other democracy, regulates speech in ways we don't. Don't have to like it, but "slippery slope" isn't a strong argument here.
5 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Yeah and its been used in a lot of ways that make people uncomfortable and we wrestle with it. And we have 0 laws about social media companies and what they can or can't moderate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Hes not making a slippery slope argument, he's making the argument that the exact laws you are arguing for will be used to suppress the most critical speech, not the worst speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
And what I'm saying is that it's the US that's the exception in the democratic world, so the argument that this is "inevitably" going to lead to suppressing most critical speech is either not very strong, or, in its strong form, applies to almost all regulation.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
But I'm not getting a better answer, so I assume that's the form of this argument... It will "inevitably" lead to suppressing critical speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Ok, no one has a law you are describing that has major social media companies except for like Russia and China. So yeah, laws that literally direct private companies to suppress speech will lead to suppressing speech the lawmakers dont like.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Are you serious? Almost all of Europe does. Wow. So does Canada. Australia. New Zealand. This US-centric view is.. peculiar, especially given the US is the exception here, not the norm. I think I have my answer here. Okay...
-
-
What? I live in Canada and our hate speech laws do not day what you think they do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But you have them! And somehow aren't just throwing dissidents in prison because the laws exist?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.