"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny...Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. Commissioner Pravin Lal, 'U.N. Declaration of Rights' "
Perhaps more appropriate:
* Instructions for making an illegal firearm
* Unpopular political opinions
* Instructions for engaging in illicit speech without detection
* Silently standing still with head bowed and hands folded in public
* Using a VPN
* Holding a sign at a protest
There are probably many more examples like the above, which would engender a more nuanced discussion.
This is an exercise in censorship, in a sense. So is blocking spam.
OP’s point stands. Information flow requires regulation in any society. I’ve been something of a free-speech absolutist most of my life, but I’m strongly re-thinking that after seeing Europe and America fall to what can only be described as populist stupidity.
I agree! But where to draw the line? Your examples include crimes (distinct from whatever speech/expression) that are far beyond where anyone is saying should be allowed. This seemed a bit disingenuous to me. I was trying to engender a higher-quality discussion.
That's the thing, when you draw the line you no longer have "free" speech/expression, you only have "speech that's not considered a crime"
The examples are what society have collectively decided are forms of speech/expression (yes they are all speech/expression) that people shouldn't be free to use.
Your definition of "reasonable" is always going to be someone else's "too broad" or "too narrow", "too woke" or "too fascist". There's no escaping that.
The comment I was replying to was
> "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny...Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. Commissioner Pravin Lal, 'U.N. Declaration of Rights' "
You've spent your time since trying to define what can and cannot be spoken about - which is exactly what the original comment said was bad.
1. Who Are YOU to define what can or cannot be spoken about?
2. Why do you think that YOUR contributions are "reasonable" but someone pointing out several of the existing restrictions on "free speech" that people happily agree on isn't?
Also, FTR I thought to also include the following speech restrictions:
- Trademark infringement
- Copyright infringement
- Patent infringement
- Non Disclosure Agreements
edit: The fact of the matter is, people generally don't realise how restricted speech is in the world (regardless of where you are)
If a state wants to further censor people all they need to do is convince people that the speech category is harmful in some way or other, and boom, it's illegal.