Originally posted by karajorma
Rictor I'm going to put up posters around the town where you live with your picture on and a sign saying that you're a pedophile.
Lets see how long you keep defending my right to say anything I want after that happens.
If that means that no one will ever be censored again, I'm game.
Look at the comparative pros/cons. Lets take the two extremes, total freedom of speech, or total censorship. This is simply to establish which side is "better", and therefore, to which side one should lean if a conflict comes up.
Total freedom of speech:
Anyone can say anything. Many people, across the spectrum, will use this to slander anyone they want. Unsubstantiated rumours and outright lies will no doubt be circulated, whether it is in the office or on the floors of Congress. However, it is reasonable to assume that most of the high profile cases, those which recieve significant media attention, will be those involving powerful people. Politicians, businessmen, celebrities and so forth. Given that powerful people tend to have more resources at their disposale that the average Joe, they will almost certainly be able to get their version of the story out, to some degree at least. What the the In-tar-net and all, no one side is likely to dominate the media, though it is always a possibility. For anyone who is not able to disprove the allegation, and suffers immensely because of it, tough luck. If people are really as petty and vengeful as some of you think, then this would be misused to a great extent, and pretty soon, things like "He had sex with my daughter" or "He stole my chicken" would lose any sembelance of authethenticit, on account of being used to often. Crying wolf, so to speak.
Total censorship:
Anyone who speaks ill of another person, especially someone in a position of power, is a potential candidate for a libel suit. And since we all know that lawyers make all the difference, those with the hightest-priced lawyers will usually win. Even if the allegation is factually true, the case could be made that the allegation portrayed those facts in a needlessly negative light. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so more or less by definition, the people commiting the greatest crimes and the ones most worthy of media attention will be the best defended from any negative remarks against them. I think we can all think of at least a few cases where powerful people have been protected from rightful exposure because of libel laws and fancy lawyers.
Thats in the realm of private life. Publicly, the government could censor any media it wants, by accusing them of things like inciting a riot, inciting violence, hatespeech, rascism, revealing classified information, lending "material support" to terrorists and so forth. All of these have been used by the US government in the past few years, I'm not making it up as I go along. Against private citizens, against media outlets (al Jazeera comes to mind) and against whistle-blowers. These accusations are broad enough and vague enough to be misused quite freely, and I for one do not trust the government not to do so, given their past record.
I would rather err on the side of freedom of expression, I don't know about the rest of you.