Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Regulating speech is foolish and counterproductive for ci... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Regulating speech is foolish and counterproductive for civil society

    Democracy & Governance
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Regulating speech causes men to think one thing and say another
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Civil associations depend on good faith (fides)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Speech regulation erodes the good faith on which civil associations depend
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Some speech acts (incitement, defamation, coordinated deception) constitute direct harms to third parties, not merely expression of inner thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's harm principle, even in its liberty-protective form, permits restraints on speech that tangibly damage others' rights or safety.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Preventing concrete harms to citizens is a precondition for the civil trust Spinoza values, not a threat to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hobbes and Rousseau both argue that sovereign authority requires controlling the public signification of speech to prevent factional manipulation of collective will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A demos systematically deceived by coordinated propaganda cannot exercise rational self-governance, undermining democratic legitimacy itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Targeted regulation of demonstrably false or manipulative public speech can therefore strengthen rather than erode the fides on which civil association depends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Rights & LibertyDemocracy & Governance

    Connections

    1 topic

    Social Contract2 linked

    Related

    A demos systematically deceived by coordinated propaganda cannot exercise ration...Civil associations depend on good faith (fides)Hobbes and Rousseau both argue that sovereign authority requires controlling the...Mill's harm principle, even in its liberty-protective form, permits restraints o...
    +5 moreShow less
    Preventing concrete harms to citizens is a precondition for the civil trust Spin...Regulating speech causes men to think one thing and say anotherSome speech acts (incitement, defamation, coordinated deception) constitute dire...Speech regulation erodes the good faith on which civil associations dependTargeted regulation of demonstrably false or manipulative public speech can ther...

    Similar

    Regulating speech causes men to think one thing and say another69%Censorship, even of false belief, harms both those whose speech is sup...69%Suppressing speech removes epistemic resources that speakers and audie...69%Therefore, recognizing a right to revolution would undermine the very ...68%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: spinoza-political
    View source passageHide passage
    Next, the argument shifts from considering what the sovereign can do to what it would be practical or prudent for a sovereign to do. Spinoza offers a battery of pragmatic reasons in defense of non-interference. For instance, he argues that “a state can never succeed very far in attempting to force people to speak as the sovereign power commands” (TTP 20, 251). Men are naturally inclined to express what they believe (ibid.), and so just as attempts to regulate beliefs fail, so do attempts to regu
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit