undefined | Better HN

0 pointshutzlibu5y ago0 comments

My point was, that it is hard and the lines are blurry.

But actually I do believe in the concept of unrestricted speech.

But I really don't know when was the last time, that was tried. There were times, when certain topics were ok to speak freely about, like racism, yes, but at those times other topics were restricted, so what exactly are you talking about?

0 comments

patmorgan235y ago

There's a difference between largely unrestricted speech legally (being free from gov censorship) and having an unmoderated online community. Moderation is a good thong when done correctly, it raises the quality of the conversion by keeping bad actors and off-topic/toxic comments /post out. There's value in both tightly moderated and loosely moderated communities/spaces.

ves5y ago

Do you know anywhere with truly unrestricted speech?

The US has the freest speech that I know of (granted it’s also the only model that I’m so familiar with), and even it has plenty of restrictions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

bhupy5y ago

The restrictions on speech in the US are confined to “imminent lawless action”, per Brandenburg v Ohio. I think the commenter to whom you are replying might be entirely fine with Reddit’s speech policy following that precedent.

And no, shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater is not illegal and is protected by the First Amendment.

patmorgan235y ago

But you can't shout fire in crowed theater with the intent to cause chaos. You can shout fire in a crowded theater, if there is an actual fire.

1 more reply

thinkloop5y ago

> I do believe in the concept of unrestricted speech.

Including illegal things?

hutzlibuOP5y ago

What do you mean by that?

In Saudia Arabia it is illegal to say, God does not exist. (and in germany under special circumstances, too - meaning, if enough people would get angry at you saying that, it would be illegal for you to say so)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse