It seems to me a repeating pattern that once freedom of thought, speech and expression is limited for essentially any reason, it will have unintended consequences.

Once the tools are in place, they will be used, abused and inevitably end up in the hands of someone you disagree with, regardless of whether the original implementer had good intentions.

As such I’m personally very averse to restrictions. I’ve thought about the question a fair bit – there isn’t a clear cut or obvious line to draw.

Please elaborate and motivate your answer. I’m genuinely curious about getting some fresh perspectives.

  • Kissaki@feddit.orgEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    Minimal restrictions? I think it needs to be contextualized. And it depends on what your goals are.

    Implicit restrictions may work very well, as social contracts and dynamics, until they don’t. Like shame making us normalize and assimilate into a social group. This may not work of different kinds of personalities or personality disorders, and/or in bigger and more anonymized societies.

    For a good, stable, society you need a strong justice system separate from individuals, and people to have confidence in it and its justice. It can serve as a mediator and interpreter of restrictions, and weigh the different interests, for example of individuals vs public interest.

    A right to privacy is very important to not give attack vectors to malicious intents, but it must end when it becomes a danger to others.

    Any form of hatespeech, disinformation, manipulation, lying to ruin or damage others, physically or mentally, stalking must be restricted.

    At the same time, the restrictions must not apply unquestioned to things in the interest of the public, of society, and of justice.

    Personally, I like the German system of unreasonable insulting not being allowed more than a US free speech including unreasonable insults. But that’s something that may not be “minimal” even if it means causing some damage to some people, and excluding some from participating in some or all of society due to immediate or indirect effects.

    I don’t think you can draw a hard, specific line that can stand statically and unquestioned.