Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.

Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion

Edit2: IP= intellectal property

Edit3: sort by controversal

  • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    While I’m tempted to agree, the big problem here is that if the government can decide that some speech is illegal, they can use that to silence people they don’t like.

    Obviously the system we’ve got now in the US isn’t working, but we need to tread carefully when giving the government power to decide what is or isn’t the “right beliefs”.

    • mke@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      It’s not perfect, sure, but we as a society should be capable of deciding that some things aren’t okay without giving the state carte blanche to censor as they see fit. If the system can be abused, then we ought to fix it, not forgo it entirely.

      Plus, governments and companies already suppress or ban a bunch of speech, often in favor of the ruling class. I doubt outlawing harmful speech like parent comment suggests would be the straw that breaks democracy’s back.

      • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Hard to be the breaking point when it’s already broken. But if it weren’t broken already… then I think it actually might.

        What we could do is make “journalist” a protected profession. So just like you can’t call yourself a fiduciary unless you hold to a certain set of ethical guidelines, you wouldn’t be able to call yourself a journalist unless you agree not to lie (among other things). So if you forgo the title of journalist, you can say whatever you want (obviously the other laws still apply, so you still can’t slander or libel, and if spreading misinformation causes harm you can still be liable). But if you are calling yourself a journalist, you voluntarily assume a higher standard for what you are allowed to say.

        I think that would avoid any first amendment issues. But I’m not a lawyer, so please don’t take my word for it 🤣

    • SeekPie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Yeah, it’s like giving anyone who’s living somewhere illegally no due process. If they can deport people based on what they say is illegal and you have no way to fight that, then who’s to say that they aren’t going to call you illegal and deport you?