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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Regulating speech is foolish and counterproductive for civil society

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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