> I disagree with restrictions on speech for the following reason:
I've never once met a true free speech absolutist. We accept restrictions on speech all the time. We restrict companies from outright lying about their products. We (sometimes) hold people accountable for lying under oath. We even compel certain speech by forcing companies to disclose ingredients and allergens. Even for government some material is justifiably classified and shouldn't be publicly shared. I should not be allowed to make direct calls for violence against others, phone in fake bomb threats, or yell "fire" in a theater.
There are good reasons to limit/place restrictions on speech. It's the same with every right we have. There will be instances that call for restriction. It falls on us to make sure that we preserve freedom as much as we can while still enacting sane restrictions.
Laws against racist speech do more harm than good. They hinder our efforts to understand and confront racism and they are so broadly defined that they are easily abused. That doesn't mean other restrictions on speech are't a good idea though.
> We restrict companies from outright lying about their products.
These sorts of lies are usually covered under existing fraud laws. When such laws don't exist, companies use accreditation firms. Long before OSHA, Underwriters Laboratories tested the safety of various building materials and electrical devices. Customers and insurers preferred UL-approved products because it meant a lower risk of harm. If a manufacturer changed their product to be less safe, they'd lose their UL certification and a lot of revenue.
> We (sometimes) hold people accountable for lying under oath.
Yes and we hold people accountable for trying to pass counterfeit money or writing bad checks. These sorts of situations are special because all parties agree on the rules at the start of the transaction. By the same token I'm against unprovoked violence but fine with sports like boxing.
> We even compel certain speech by forcing companies to disclose ingredients and allergens.
I'd be fine abolishing such laws. Companies that didn't list their ingredients would probably lose significant business (since many people have allergies). Companies that lied about their ingredients could be charged with fraud (either in civil or criminal court). And again, in places where such laws don't exist, accreditation firms do the job. That said, we don't require ingredient labeling at bake sales and those seem to do fine.
> I should not be allowed to make direct calls for violence against others, phone in fake bomb threats, or yell "fire" in a theater.
The "fire in a crowded theater" hypothetical is from a supreme court case where socialists were imprisoned for distributing leaflets that protested conscription in the first world war.[1] It has since been overturned, and it is an excellent example of why any restriction on speech ends up being abused by those in power.
> These sorts of lies are usually covered under existing fraud laws.
In those cases the laws dealing with fraud are still imposing a restriction on what people are allowed to say. Same with trademark and copyright laws. It's a good thing that companies aren't allowed to simply lie about having a UL certification for example.
> These sorts of situations are special because all parties agree on the rules at the start of the transaction
True, but only depending on the situation and what you consider to be a transaction. If a law is passed that makes it illegal to offend someone on twitter, anyone who uses twitter "agreed to the rules" too right? You don't always have a choice. If you give false information to police for example you haven't agreed to anything explicitly but they'll still come after you if they find out.
> I'd be fine abolishing such laws
I don't think you find broad support for that.
> Companies that didn't list their ingredients would probably lose significant business
You might think that, but history shows you'd be wrong. Gerber and Beech-Nut sold baby food that contained dangerous levels of arsenic mercury and lead. DuPont knowingly poisoned people while trying to hide that fact from authorities. Johnson & Johnson also lied and hid their knowledge that their product would harm their customers. Lenovo has repeatedly shipped malware infested systems to consumers which opened them up to everything from privacy leaks to remote code execution. None of those companies went out of business. You couldn't count the number of companies who are currently, and/or have previously and often repeatedly caused harm to their customers yet continue to operate successfully. Even when the consequences were deaths, including the deaths of children. "Voting with our wallets" is a proven failure as a means to regulate the dangerous and harmful actions of corporations.
The "fire in a crowded theater" example still holds. It wasn't overturned as much as it was refined to limit its use to what it was originally intended for because it was being abused. The risk of abuse is always present. We need to be careful to keep an eye on every case where freedom of speech is restricted to make sure it was appropriate, but just because someone can misuse something to violate our rights doesn't mean that thing shouldn't exist. Nearly every law or power police and government have are at risk of being abused. The answer isn't anarchy but oversight.
I've never once met a true free speech absolutist. We accept restrictions on speech all the time. We restrict companies from outright lying about their products. We (sometimes) hold people accountable for lying under oath. We even compel certain speech by forcing companies to disclose ingredients and allergens. Even for government some material is justifiably classified and shouldn't be publicly shared. I should not be allowed to make direct calls for violence against others, phone in fake bomb threats, or yell "fire" in a theater.
There are good reasons to limit/place restrictions on speech. It's the same with every right we have. There will be instances that call for restriction. It falls on us to make sure that we preserve freedom as much as we can while still enacting sane restrictions.
Laws against racist speech do more harm than good. They hinder our efforts to understand and confront racism and they are so broadly defined that they are easily abused. That doesn't mean other restrictions on speech are't a good idea though.
reply