Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I agree with what you're saying, but I find it confusing when you conflate misinformationistas with those who would unreasonably constrain free speech.

I don't understand the difference you are going for. Would you provide definitions and examples if possible.

1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s).
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views.

Thanks for the clarification.
1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s) are like Fox News and the NYT
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views are like the US government.

This is probably more pertinent:

1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s) are like MSNBC and CNN
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views are like the UK government.

[Sushan]

In addition to being a great instrument for advancement, free speech may also be a weapon if it is abused. Although Mill's insight serves as a reminder of its importance, it also carries responsibility. Together, let's strive for a society free from damage and where freedom of expression promotes respect and equality. Freedom and responsibility need to coexist.

[Good_Egg]

1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s).
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views.

The difference being that between fact and opinion ?

[Joule Mwendwa]

In addition to being a great instrument for advancement, free speech may also be a weapon if it is abused. Although Mill's insight serves as a reminder of its importance, it also carries responsibility. Together, let's strive for a society free from damage and where freedom of expression promotes respect and equality. Freedom and responsibility need to coexist.

True. Any freedom without responsibility will always take unprecedented path.

[Pattern-chaser]

I agree with what you're saying, but I find it confusing when you conflate misinformationistas with those who would unreasonably constrain free speech.

I don't understand the difference you are going for. Would you provide definitions and examples if possible.

1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s).
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views.

Thanks for the clarification.
1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s) are like Fox News and the NYT
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views are like the US government.

At first I thought "No!", then I thought you were taking the p1ss. [English usage intended, not American.] But I finally came round to agreeing with you.

It's the propagandists who are at fault. They have no place in this discussion. But they're not proud. They will piggyback or hijack any argument, or any discussion, to ply their dishonest wares. And leaning on 'freedom of speech' to get away with peddling lies and deceit is their contribution to our discussion here.

But there are others, as we have both observed, who would misuse FoS to try to restrict the ways in which you can express your personal opinions when they don't like your opinions, and would find it a great deal more convenient if such views were not openly aired. I think these are the miscreants we should be targetting here, yes?

[Pattern-chaser]

1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s).
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views.

The difference being that between fact and opinion ?

Not quite. It's more like the difference between

1. Propagandists, using FoS to peddle their deliberate lies and disinformation, and

2. Those who wish to suppress the public expression of opinions that they find inconvenient.

The first lot are trespassing here. They are of no real interest to us, in this discussion. The second lot should (IMO) be opposed, and ideally prevented from their unreasonable constraints on FoS.

Reasonable limits to FoS exist, but what we are discussing here has nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with perfidy.