Why banning 'harmful' online speech is a slippery slope • Hacker News Board

Re: Why banning 'harmful' online speech is a slippery slope

#21

Post by manicdee » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 11:19 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #15

alkonaut wrote: post #3

It’s called slippery slope fallacy for a reason.

Yelling "slippery slope fallacy" does not prove that the slope is in fact not slippery. The validity of the slippery slope argument turns on how solid the reasoning chain is from action to consequence to the next consequence and so on, through to the final outcome. Do we have good reason to think that each step will happen? So, in this case, do we have good reason to think that this slope might in fact be slippery? T…

The clearly visible and eye-searingly bright line here is that the people on Parler were not just wishing ill against others but making plans and executing them. There was no moderation to keep those publicly visible conversations from gathering steam.

It's very easy to avoid seeing clear lines in the sand if you walk around with your eyes closed.

Re: Why banning 'harmful' online speech is a slippery slope

#22

Post by manicdee » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

boringpolitics wrote: post #14

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint to this line of reasoning is the fact that Europe has had laws banning neo-Nazism and such speech for like half a century, and no slippery slopes have thus far been encountered.

This is incorrect. Most of Europe has free speech: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

Are you claiming there are no laws banning holocaust denial in Europe? If you're not, then there's nothing incorrect about the statement you were countering.

Re: Why banning 'harmful' online speech is a slippery slope

#23

Post by jakopo87 » Sat, Jan 16, 2021, 8:47 AM UTC

boringpolitics wrote: post #14

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint to this line of reasoning is the fact that Europe has had laws banning neo-Nazism and such speech for like half a century, and no slippery slopes have thus far been encountered.

This is incorrect. Most of Europe has free speech: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

Your quote is lacking the second part of the Art.10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which describes how free speech is not "unlimited":

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."