So where are the free speech extremists now? Should Russian agitators be allowed to continue to attack the West using a sustained injection of misinformation and propaganda?
No, that is only true in civil discourse where all participants act in good faith. Dishonest actors that try to disrupt the discourse with a neverending flood of lies and disinformation cannot be countered with "more speech". They can deliver more lies than you can counter in the same time and drown out your "more speech" so that it is effectively buried and never seen by anyone.
Disinformation and lies spread purposefully has no place in a democracy. See Karl Poppers paradox of tolerance.
You can attribute this to me: "I may do not agree with what you say, still I will always listen to you in honest and civil discourse, but I will defend to the death the fight to stamp out disinformation, the opposition of the vile attempts to poison civil discourse and the struggle to defend democracy from attacks attempting to dismantle it."
No, that is only true in civil discourse where all participants act in good faith
This is nonsense. There was plenty of uncivil discourse when the constitution was written. The federalist papers discuss it in quite some detail. The founding fathers knew what they were doing.
Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time
as the strawberries, knows nothing about grapes.
-- Philippus Paracelsus
Free speech. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The antidote to speech is more speech. I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Re:Free speech. (Score:3)
The antidote to speech is more speech.
No, that is only true in civil discourse where all participants act in good faith. Dishonest actors that try to disrupt the discourse with a neverending flood of lies and disinformation cannot be countered with "more speech". They can deliver more lies than you can counter in the same time and drown out your "more speech" so that it is effectively buried and never seen by anyone.
Disinformation and lies spread purposefully has no place in a democracy. See Karl Poppers paradox of tolerance.
You can attribute this to me: "I may do not agree with what you say, still I will always listen to you in honest and civil discourse, but I will defend to the death the fight to stamp out disinformation, the opposition of the vile attempts to poison civil discourse and the struggle to defend democracy from attacks attempting to dismantle it."
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is only true in civil discourse where all participants act in good faith
This is nonsense. There was plenty of uncivil discourse when the constitution was written. The federalist papers discuss it in quite some detail. The founding fathers knew what they were doing.