The notion that "Bad things can sometimes happen when people do X" means "We should pass laws banning X" is deeply flawed, both contrary to our nation's founding principles and counterproductive in practice, not to mention wasting astronomical amounts of money on enforcers, who can only catch a small fraction of "violators". To cast out this kind of destructive thinking means we also have to give up the notion that government is here to protect us from stupid decisions: he (or it) who pays the piper calls the tune. Whoever would be free must be self-responsible, and whoever IS self-responsible has every right to demand to be free, and to back up that demand with whatever means prove necessary to get it done.
I would love a blurb from FIRE on the Meta and Google trial that just kicked off this week! How do the legal questions apply to free speech? What are the free speech implications of different potential outcomes? TY!
The First Amendment does not grant freedom of speech. It recognizes that the right to free speech exists, irrespective of law. The rest of the Bill of Rights is in the same vein, including the Ninth Amendment which says that there are similar rights that exist that might not be listed in the Bill of Rights. These rights come from (take your pick) God or the fact of human existence.
It used to be that all of these rights were considered an essential part of a (small-l) liberal society. As time has progressed, however, these rights have been eroded to the service of (insufficiently accountable) governments and other authorities, as well as people who place too much emphasis on "safety" and "avoiding harm", out of balance with other values.
While I don't agree with Jonathan Haidt's current anti-cellphone and anti-social media jihad, he did do a great analysis of moral foundations (https://moralfoundations.org/) . Some of the moral foundations that threaten free speech when taken out-of-balance or to excess include care/harm (safety), authority, and sanctity. Too much of a good thing can be bad, and any system that is not self-regulating or accountable will tend to excess.
Back to your question, do we need to worry about what other countries are doing to their citizens? Well, our first priority is right here at home. But if these rights are pre-existing regardless of local laws, customs, or creeds, then their infringement anywhere is an injustice.
I agree that it is an injustice. But there are injustices everywhere including here in America. America must first prioritize its own justice system before worrying about what happens in other countries.
These types of laws are bad news, here and abroad. (Preaching to the choir, I know)
The notion that "Bad things can sometimes happen when people do X" means "We should pass laws banning X" is deeply flawed, both contrary to our nation's founding principles and counterproductive in practice, not to mention wasting astronomical amounts of money on enforcers, who can only catch a small fraction of "violators". To cast out this kind of destructive thinking means we also have to give up the notion that government is here to protect us from stupid decisions: he (or it) who pays the piper calls the tune. Whoever would be free must be self-responsible, and whoever IS self-responsible has every right to demand to be free, and to back up that demand with whatever means prove necessary to get it done.
I would love a blurb from FIRE on the Meta and Google trial that just kicked off this week! How do the legal questions apply to free speech? What are the free speech implications of different potential outcomes? TY!
Free speech is an American principle. Do we really need to worry what other countries are doing to their citizens?
The First Amendment does not grant freedom of speech. It recognizes that the right to free speech exists, irrespective of law. The rest of the Bill of Rights is in the same vein, including the Ninth Amendment which says that there are similar rights that exist that might not be listed in the Bill of Rights. These rights come from (take your pick) God or the fact of human existence.
It used to be that all of these rights were considered an essential part of a (small-l) liberal society. As time has progressed, however, these rights have been eroded to the service of (insufficiently accountable) governments and other authorities, as well as people who place too much emphasis on "safety" and "avoiding harm", out of balance with other values.
While I don't agree with Jonathan Haidt's current anti-cellphone and anti-social media jihad, he did do a great analysis of moral foundations (https://moralfoundations.org/) . Some of the moral foundations that threaten free speech when taken out-of-balance or to excess include care/harm (safety), authority, and sanctity. Too much of a good thing can be bad, and any system that is not self-regulating or accountable will tend to excess.
Back to your question, do we need to worry about what other countries are doing to their citizens? Well, our first priority is right here at home. But if these rights are pre-existing regardless of local laws, customs, or creeds, then their infringement anywhere is an injustice.
I agree that it is an injustice. But there are injustices everywhere including here in America. America must first prioritize its own justice system before worrying about what happens in other countries.
If your statement is simply one of triage then, yeah, I agree.
What I don't care for is the idea that a country's legal code is just because it's "the law", as if that statement would absolve a multitude of sins.
America has been under the delusion that its laws should apply to everyone around the world, by force if necessary. Thank God, America has woken up.