[astorgard]

> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way.

Just for the purpose of debating let me bring up my (very unpopular) point of view.

I have always thought that anyone should be able to say anything and not have legal consequences (ex: go to prison, pay a fine).

Notice that this statement covers all scenarios as long as the person involved "only speaks" (or publishes). In other words, the moment he does something illegal, then he should (in my opinion) be judged according to the rules of the society he lives in.

Now... I have never in my live encountered one single person that agrees 100% with me in that regard. They always come up with exceptions, such as these ones:

1) An author writes a book about having sex with minors.

2) A general tells one of his soldiers to shoot a prisoner.

3) My neighbor starts publishing ads on the local newspaper falsely accusing me of being a drug dealer.

These are my responses:

1) As long as we don't catch him having sex with minors, that's ok with me. We should encourage all types of debates, even those (specially those!) we are not comfortable with. In the worst case, each one will walk home thinking the other side is wrong; in the best case, maybe we will learn something from each other (maybe we can better understand how the brain of that author works and how we can help him). Simply banning a taboo topic won't make it disappear from society... openly discussing the topic will (in my opinion) be a better long term solution for all.

2) In this case the general is not just "saying" something. Due to the chain of command, the soldier can end up imprisoned or dead if he doesn't comply. I would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise.

3) This is the most tricky one. I still think my neighbor should be able to do that because I expect others who read the newspaper ad to fact check his claims instead of blindly believe them. No one I have ever met agrees with me on this one... and I think that is because people always consider others to be "dumber" than themselves and thus need to be protected from non curated news in case they end up believing them. I really think this is not the case: I never believe anything I read on the newspaper (or online) until I get confirmation from several places and I know most people do the same, no matter how others like to "look down" at "average Joe".

I enjoy discussing the limits of "freedom of speech/ideas". Let me know what you (or any other) think :)

[buisi]

While your idea has some merit, there is a distinction to be made between writing a book about completely fictional scenarios involving sex with minors, and advocating sex with minors (telling people that it is fine in a piece of advocacy like on a blog).

People sometimes get these two confused, but they're not the same thing.

Someone can easily construct a fantasy world where doing that might be fine / unharmful (or in scenarios where it is harmful, it is clear to the reader that it is bad to act on), yet believe it is harmful in reality.

Between the covers of a book is another universe. In a way, imagine someone is transported to another planet which resembles your own.

There is also indeed the distinction between advocating for something and doing it. To pick a less charged example, I advocate for the legalization of most drugs (although, it doesn't mean I would support irresponsible use, much like how I wouldn't support drink driving). This doesn't necessarily mean I am secretly consuming cocaine, heroin, LSD, and all manner of other illicit drugs.

Another thing is that there is a difference between someone giving their opinions on the matter, and actively inciting someone to do it. If someone specifically instructs the reader to go out and do it, that is clearly very bad. But, I've never heard of such a thing happening, and if it did, it is more likely to be an internet troll. It is too damaging of an act.

I am of the opinion that text + anything which is digitally created is fine. Nothing which goes back to a specific abuse, although there are occasions where the victim of child abuse will chronicle their abuse in text, and I think they should be free to do so. There is also the case in Canada where someone did a retelling of an old story (IIRC Hansel and Gretel) which was more faithful to the original.

In practice, I imagine it would be quite ruinous to publish books which cover such themes under your own name, and it would be advised to use some sort of pen name.

[ofrzeta]

I think the limits will certainly come down to the consequences the "words" bring with them. Without them the discussion is quite theoretical. You can safely say "everything is allowed" and then defer to another ontological realm where you cleanly separate the actions from the words.

However if someone in reality would start to smear you and especially other people like your wife or daughter with some verbal shit so they would have to suffer from it the limits of freedom of speech would look different.

[sofixa]

> would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise

I think that's incredibly naive and doesn't actually work in the world we live in. Take a look at any of the genocides of the last century, with people on one side saying "we should kill all X", people saying "no, X are fine people", and sometimes the first type of people winning and going full genocide.

FFS it happened as recently as last year in Myanmar about mass misinformation against Rohingyas, which escalated to a genocide.

What then? When the "explaining" doesn't work, do you wait for the actions to start ( taking in mind that usually when a mass amount of people start genociding another people, you can't just easily stop it)? Then, in a way, aren't you complicit in that genocide because you could have acted before but chose to just talk? That's what the Germans settled on post-WWII, that they were all complicit for allowing the Nazis to get so far ( and talking obviously got them nowhere).

[astorgard]

Saying (as I do) that everyone should be able to express their ideas (no matter how atrocious) publicly without facing administrative punishment does *not* mean that other actions (such as keeping a close eye on them) should not be taken.

I doubt that preventing the Nazis from discussing their ideas would have stopped them. Having their ideas not suppressed from public forums at least gave the chance to others to understand what was going on in order to try to stop it (which, in this case, failed miserably).

When "explaining doesn't work" it's time to take action. But not while the only proof you have against someone is what he said (instead of what he did).

The "brain washing" power that continuous propaganda has is not under question, but still I like to hold accountable those who do, and not those who say (I know this is a very unpopular opinion, that's why I like to discuss about it!).

[david38]

This is why fiction / fantasy writings of any kind should be allowed.

[YarickR2]

I agree with you on all points. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom of thought. Actions should be punishable, words shouldn't

[astorgard]

You are literally the first person I find who agrees with me. Hi there! :)

Just for the shake of discussion, let me put on the table some other extreme examples people bring up:

A) Apology of "something bad" (for example, "apology of terrorism"). Is it OK for someone to appear on TV and say that he is happy about all the people killed in 11-S and that others should repeat the attack?

B) Targeted attack. Back to the neighbor example: would it be OK if he not only published a newspaper ad against me every day but also appeared on TV shows, sent propaganda to other neighbors, hired a plane to draw my name on the sky, etc...?

C) Dangerous information. Example: someone discovers that by mixing two very easy to find (and accessible to everyone) chemicals, the whole atmosphere of the earth would be modified in hours in a way that all people from ethnicity X would immediately die. Is it OK for him to publish this information?

I still think all these cases are covered... but I would like to know how others reason about them :)