This is an argument against all laws, though. You may wanna make an argument against this particular idea, but the structure of your argument applies to every single thing we regulate—without exception.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
I don't think that's necessarily true. In fact, it's not true.
3 replies 0 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @mmasnick
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.
5 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
That’s misrepresenting his argument. Curtailing speech for the people you dislike will inevitably, as has happened countless times here and around the world, be used against the people you like or even yourself.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AmagiAlpha @mmasnick
That argument applies to regulating food, too. (In fact, food I *do* like has been regulated into non-existence in the US). What I'm saying is that the logic of "it will be used against" is broad and applies to almost anything we do regulate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don’t think you’re still grasping that regulating manufacturing isn’t the same as saying that speech may only exist in certain places & in certain ways. Obviously legally dubious, but it’s draconian and literally one of the first steps of autocrats.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AmagiAlpha @mmasnick
United States is practically one of the few, maybe the only, country in the world with this particular first amendment jurisprudence. One can express a preference for it, but the idea that nothing else is possible without turning immediately into autocracy is weak sauce argument.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And we have a pretty good historical record to comb through for comparison. 1A was extremely limited for most of US history and changed radically in the middle of the 20th. It was very much Not Good. You would not be surprised at who suffered.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
user name checks out
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I am curious though - is your position that it’s silly or inappropriate to be concerned about tools getting into the hands of bad and/or incompetent people prior to their creation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course not. It's always a concern, but broadly speaking, it applies to almost all regulations.
-
-
Right, and all regulations (which are implicitly backed by coercive force) should be heavily scrutinized for unintended consequences. Especially when those consequences only require power shifting to someone bad or incompetent - which is guaranteed eventually.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.