- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,636
- 18,535
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Malicious speech that is false has never been a recognized right and civil courts exist to impose fines to that end.
Upvote
0
But this is only a subset of harmful false speech. However I don't have a good way to go beyond that without causing problems.Malicious speech that is false has never been a recognized right and civil courts exist to impose fines to that end.
Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.
There would be no trouble there at all. There is ample proof that the world is more than 6000-10,000 years old.Yes.
The Primary problem with banning "Falsehood" is who gets to define "Falsehood"
Some areas where you would get the most complaints even from this site.
Is the Earth App 6000-10000 years old or 4.5 Billion Years Old?
Did Humans Arise via Evolution or Creationism?
Right there with just those two things you would have problems if you were to punish those telling "Falsehoods"
Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood?
If some of the people who dominate the conservation surrounding gender on Twitter were in power, they could make stating biological facts (like women have XX chromosome) as falsehoods.
Well technically some don't.
XY gonadal dysgenesis - Wikipedia
Triple X syndrome - Wikipedia
Turner syndrome - Wikipedia
Tetrasomy X - Wikipedia
There would be no trouble there at all. There is ample proof that the world is more than 6000-10,000 years old.
Evolution is also a fact, but I don't expect anyone who believes the world is only 6000 years old to grasp that fact.
Facts are not falsehoods.
But this is only a subset of harmful false speech. However I don't have a good way to go beyond that without causing problems.
Free speech has always had limitations - not just in the US, but in pretty much any country with a constitution. The idea that free speech is totally without limitations is some kind of weird libertarian fantasy, completely absent of a grounding in the realities of the history and the law of speech.
What you said leads me to think that you believe simply having faith in something is proof. Belief in a god is faith-based, but there is nothing that can prove the existence of that god. Its existence is in the mind of the believer.There is only ample proof if one actually believes the method used to acquire that ample proof is a valid one. If one is invested in one way of uncovering evidence based solely upon one's personal preferences then one will not be open to other means of exploring the truth. If one is open minded enough to question one's own ideas about what constitutes factual information one might be more willing to admit that every method of truth detection is based upon faith alone.
No, an aircraft can fly thanks to the scientific principles of aerodynamics and thrust. These principles are in operation thousands of times a day, every day, as aircraft crisscross the sky.
Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood?
Yes because free speech is a political issue and the government has no right to tell anyone what to believe or what they can say? Its only role is as a protector of individual rights including the right to free speech. No one has the right to harm others though and it's proper for the government to step in in such a case. As for punishment, I think it should be proportional to the damage done to someone's life or property as a result of the falsehood.Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.
I have yet to hear a Christian, a Muslim, or a person of any other religious faith say that what they believe is wrong. Quite the contrary. They claim to have the truth, it's the rest of us who are wrong!
It's funny you mention this, because science literally doesn't know why airplanes fly. It turns out that in this case you have more faith in science than science has in itself.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/
I think this statement may be misleading. There are excellent computer models. Those models are obviously based on good understanding of fluid flow. The problem seems to be in producing a nontechnical way of explaining it.It's funny you mention this, because science literally doesn't know why airplanes fly. It turns out that in this case you have more faith in science than science has in itself.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/
Yes because free speech is a political issue
Its only role is as a protector of individual rights including the right to free speech.
No one has the right to harm others though and it's proper for the government to step in in such a case.
You make it sound like it's a total mystery, and that's just not the case.
High pressure below the wings, low pressure above the wings. The details are complex, of course, but that's essentially it.
I think this statement may be misleading. There are excellent computer models. Those models are obviously based on good understanding of fluid flow. The problem seems to be in producing a nontechnical way of explaining it.
Does free speech include the right to spread falsehood? If so, why? If not, what’s the punishment for doing so? For the sake of argument let’s assume whatever falsehood is being spread can indeed be proven false.