And you extrapolated that to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”.
If you really care - and I suspect you don’t because you’re just another lemmykin who just wants to jump on somebody who disagrees with you and “be right” - I’m saying the risk involved with state-sponsored censorship is higher than the risk associated with allowing misinformation to be spread.
This is why I say the original case largely doesn’t matter - because my position doesn’t depend on the veracity of the claims being made. I’m arguing about what a state should and should not be allowed to do. Because the state is sometimes led by people who define truth very differently from how I would want.
You think this translates to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”???
Yeah, it’s a black and white position. You specifically are saying the state is unable to obtain justice because of the “risk”. You preclude the possibility of justice being obtained. I’m pretty amazed you can find so many ways to say the same thing and not realize that. But hey, I’m sure it’s just everybody else being irrational right?
Do you think “black and white” just means that I have an opinion that I feel is correct?
You preclude the possibility of justice being obtained.
How did you even possibly get this from what I’ve said? I feel that allowing free speech is justice.
I’m sure it’s just everybody else being irrational right?
Not one person has yet actually asked me to clarify my position. You’ve all only told me what I really mean. So yes - it is everyone else being irrational.
This is how people figure out how each other think, calm down.
It does seem you are saying governments shouldnt be permitted to seek justice against misinformation because doing so puts a greater injustice on the public as a whole.
Thats me rephrasing your point from earlier to see if I understand it right, so if I have it wrong feel free to explain.
And you extrapolated that to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”.
If you really care - and I suspect you don’t because you’re just another lemmykin who just wants to jump on somebody who disagrees with you and “be right” - I’m saying the risk involved with state-sponsored censorship is higher than the risk associated with allowing misinformation to be spread.
This is why I say the original case largely doesn’t matter - because my position doesn’t depend on the veracity of the claims being made. I’m arguing about what a state should and should not be allowed to do. Because the state is sometimes led by people who define truth very differently from how I would want.
You think this translates to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”???
Yeah, it’s a black and white position. You specifically are saying the state is unable to obtain justice because of the “risk”. You preclude the possibility of justice being obtained. I’m pretty amazed you can find so many ways to say the same thing and not realize that. But hey, I’m sure it’s just everybody else being irrational right?
Do you think “black and white” just means that I have an opinion that I feel is correct?
How did you even possibly get this from what I’ve said? I feel that allowing free speech is justice.
Not one person has yet actually asked me to clarify my position. You’ve all only told me what I really mean. So yes - it is everyone else being irrational.
This is how people figure out how each other think, calm down.
It does seem you are saying governments shouldnt be permitted to seek justice against misinformation because doing so puts a greater injustice on the public as a whole.
Thats me rephrasing your point from earlier to see if I understand it right, so if I have it wrong feel free to explain.
Please clarify your position?
…crickets…
So… After being asked by multiple people to clarify your position, you’re not going to after all?