• Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I totally agree with what you say. I think, though, that the starting points of this post are already an extreme interpretation of the freedom of speech. The whole post is just a twised and extreme viewpoint.

    What I find interesting though is, that the argument he arrived at, pretty much contradicts the purpouse of freedom of speech.

    He’s like “Bits are just bits and the meaning of bits doesn’t matter”. But if it doesn’t matter, why would you need to protect that? Freedom of speech only deserves protection because the speech (or the information) matters. If it wouldn’t matter, it wouldn’t be a big deal if random combinations of bit-values would be made illegal.

    • BruceDoh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, I think you were correct originally that this is ultimately a freedom of speech issue. I would have the same argument against free speech absolutism. It just ignores the cause and effect related to communicating information. That’s why we have laws against speech that incites violence. Sometimes the effect of speech can be equal to or greater (by orders of magnitude) than physical action.

      • Piers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s always seemed strange to me that free-speech absolutists seem to argue that what people say doesn’t have much effect on the world.

        If it’s so insignificant an act… Why are they so invested in protecting their right to do so without any constraints?