Democracy is essentially always incompatible with a free society in the first place. Eating dinner with a Nazi isn't helping Nazis seize power. You've probably met genuine sociopaths, people who want to kill or severely harm others. Should you pre-judge them? Is that actually useful for anything?
I know someone online who privately admitted to me to being a pedophile, and is very suicidal. They claim to have never victimized anyone, just thought about it. It makes me very uncomfortable. But I also think if I bluntly said that it would make them more self-destructive, feeling more isolated, and feeling more like they shouldn't be honest. I think that would lead to them being more likely to victimize someone. This isn't just a utilitarian calculus though, I genuinely do not want them to suffer. Even though they have disgusting thoughts that could manifest in the suffering of others. What would you do?
Chicago definitely for a fact is known for "Chicago Deep Dish Pizza". Its not called "Chicago Pizza" because Chicago has a lot of style pizzas, and another famous style named after it. Chicago thin crust/tavern style.
With what you said 1. Someone doesn't have to be a good person, or be right, to coexist. Sitting at the same table as Pol Pot or Hitler isn't enabling them.
In my former school district they paid a ton to some consultancy firm to "use AI to optimize the bus route". The first day of testing the new route many kids didn't get home until after 9pm. They cancelled school for the rest of the week and then immediately reverted to the old route.
The issue with doxxing that really frustrates me as a coder is that individual developers and companies are never held responsible for making negligently insecure software.
There is not a single country on this planet that has no legal consequences for free speech
Yes.
it would be ridiculous to claim that should be the standard.
I mean, that's what freedom of speech is. Otherwise its entirely meaningless.
For one, and I feel kind of pedantic for pointing this out, but that kind of policy would preclude any obviously consequential statements made in court proceedings, for example pleading “guilty”, lying under oath,
The consequence there would be essentially signing a contract for honesty, and breaking it. Similar to how you can choose to give up an organ, but you can't force someone to give up an organ. You chose to sign away your freedom of speech in that instance. Now subpoenas I think there is a compelling argument they are a violation of freedom of speech.
Less pedantically, even in a version of the US where their so-far mythical conception of free speech was actually achieved, legal consequences are assigned to direct, material threats and attempts to cause panic.
The US does not and has never had freedom of speech. This was blatant from at least 1798. I do think the US is marginally closer than most other countries.
You’d be pretty hard pressed to claim these exceptions are unreasonable,
Its not about whether it is reasonable. It is whether it is factually true to call a regime in which speech is controlled as having freedom of speech.
the United States has pursued this exact policy and it has lead to little more than them being one of the leading contemporary examples of how an advanced democracy and economy falls into fascism and mass disenfranchisement.
Democracy is essentially always incompatible with a free society in the first place. Eating dinner with a Nazi isn't helping Nazis seize power. You've probably met genuine sociopaths, people who want to kill or severely harm others. Should you pre-judge them? Is that actually useful for anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q5DoYyV5RU
I know someone online who privately admitted to me to being a pedophile, and is very suicidal. They claim to have never victimized anyone, just thought about it. It makes me very uncomfortable. But I also think if I bluntly said that it would make them more self-destructive, feeling more isolated, and feeling more like they shouldn't be honest. I think that would lead to them being more likely to victimize someone. This isn't just a utilitarian calculus though, I genuinely do not want them to suffer. Even though they have disgusting thoughts that could manifest in the suffering of others. What would you do?