Now on censorship.

The public sphere forbids it. Only when it violates criminal code, like with slander and so on, there should be penalties.

But freedom of the press faces the objection that:

It does not promote enlightenment, but confusion.

It gives free reign to incitement against the government and the existing order.

It fosters discontent and mistrust.

It permits mockery of belief and authority

It not only gives the opportunity for truth but concerted lies and deceit.

Common interests that do not want knowledge, for example, produce public deception.

Therefor it is concluded that censorship is good and necessary.

People have to be protected from pernicious, corrupting influences, and truth withheld for one’s own good.

The answer:

Such arguments presuppose an immature people, whereas the desire for press freedom presupposes a people capable of maturity. In no way are we all mature; none of us are entirely mature; we’re all on the road to maturity.

But at every level, individuals, whether farmers or general laborers, general managers, chauffeurs, or professors, are more or less politically wise. This isn’t due to the level, but individual. We’re all human beings, and to repeat, we’re only ever on the road to maturity. It’s always human beings who censor what others are allowed to say publicly.

Censorship doesn’t make anything better. Both censorship and freedom will be abused. The question is simply: which abuse is preferable? Where’s the greater prospect? Censorship leads to both the suppression of truth and its distortion, while freedom only leads to its distortion. Suppression is absolute , but distortion can be straightened out by freedom itself.

The greater prospect is that, within and through the turbulence of opinions, truth can still crystallize in man by virtue of his innate sense of truth and the self-correction of critical publicity. Every other road leads to the downfall of truth for sure. The exclusive road is indeed no guarantee of success, but there’s hope.

Both freedom of the press and censorship put truth in danger, but again, which is the greater prospect? Which is the more honorable, appropriate for man? Only the path of freedom.

Only when it violates criminal code, like with slander and so on, there should be penalties.

But why? — NOS4A2

I recently read an article in Nature magazine in which researchers plead to their readers that we ought to care more about the threat of misinformation to democracy. To illustrate the threat they provide the typical examples, “false claims about climate change, the efficacy of proven public-health measures, and the ‘big lie’ about the 2020 US presidential election have all had clear detrimental impacts that could have been at least partially mitigated in a healthier information environment”. The researchers promise us that “efforts to keep public discourse grounded in evidence will not only help to protect citizens from manipulation and the formation of false beliefs but also safeguard democracy more generally.” — NOS4A2

In their book The Misinformation Age, philosophers Caitlin O’Connor and James Weatherall come to the stunning conclusion that the same legislative prohibitions the state puts on false advertising, hate speech, and defamation ought to extend to misinformation. — NOS4A2

These two examples are meant to illustrate a perennial tale, that some individuals believe other individuals need to be protected from the kinds of information our betters do not approve of, and therefore monopoly on information needs to be achieved. In this case, our betters are advocating for some form or other of Official Truth and censorship so that others do not form “false beliefs”. — NOS4A2

One wonders how it is that the authorities in this instance are immune to misinformation and false beliefs. — NOS4A2

All of this leads me to conclude that the hubbub over misinformation is a campaign for more power rather than a legitimate plight for public safety. — NOS4A2

Oh cool, the dude who worships the guy who said anyone burning the flag should get put in jail is gonna lecture us on free speech absolutism. Pass. — Mikie

Are you suggesting that slander and bomb threats shouldn’t be illegal? — Michael

Whenever this subject comes up, someone points out that freedom of speech, the First Amendment here in the US, only applies to government action. It doesn't limit what individuals, corporations, or institutions can do about your or my speech. It's not against the law to fire someone or ask them to leave your house if you don't like what they say. Certain kinds of speech, e.g. slander and libel, can also be addressed under civil law. If I sue you for something you said, that's not a violation of free speech as it is usually manifested. Here in the US, slander and libel are not crimes.

So... I don't see anything wrong with what the authors of the article wrote, at least as you've described it.

In the US, there are no "legislative prohibitions" against defamation and so-called hate speech. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding false advertising. I assume it is considered a type of fraud. As far as I know, it is still addressed in civil rather than criminal proceedings.

Actions, including speech, have consequences. If those consequences harm someone, it may be appropriate for the harmed party to take the speaker to court. Do you have a problem with that?

Do you have specific examples in mind of "authorities" putting the kibosh on someone's politically incorrect speech? If not, what's your kvetch? How about that - "kibosh" and "kvetch" in the same response.

Let's see which injuries you can inflict on me with your speech. — NOS4A2

Do not trust anyone who uses the words "disinformation" or "misinformation."
What they mean is "opinions that run contrary to mine that I should be allowed to suppress." — Jordan Peterson

So, by the middle of the 20th century, the scientific community — in the United States and many other Western countries — had achieved a goal long wished for by many of its most vocal members: it had been woven into the fabric of ordinary social, economic, and political life. For many academic students of science — historians, sociologists, and, above all, philosophers — that part of science which was not an academic affair remained scarcely visible, but the reality was that most of science was now conducted within government and business, and much of the public approval of science was based on a sense of its external utilities — if indeed power and profit should be seen as goals external to scientific work. Moreover, insofar as academia can still be viewed as the natural home of science, universities, too, began to rebrand themselves as normal sorts of civic institutions. For at least half a century, universities have made it clear that they should not be thought of as Ivory Towers; they were not disengaged from civic concerns but actively engaged in furthering those concerns. They have come to speak less and less about Truth and more and more about Growing the Economy and increasing their graduates’ earning power. The audit culture imposed neoliberal market standards on the evaluation of academic inquiry, offering an additional sign that science properly belonged in the market, driven by market concerns and evaluated by market criteria. The entanglement of science with business and statecraft historically tracked the disentanglement of science from the institutions of religion. That, too, was celebrated by scientific spokespersons as a great victory, but the difference here was that science and religion in past centuries were both in the Truth Business.

When science becomes so extensively bonded with power and profit, its conditions of credibility look more and more like those of the institutions in which it has been enfolded. Its problems are their problems. Business is not in the business of Truth; it is in the business of business. So why should we expect the science embedded within business to have a straightforward entitlement to the notion of Truth? The same question applies to the science embedded in the State’s exercise of power. Knowledge speaks through institutions; it is embedded in the everyday practices of social life; and if the institutions and the everyday practices are in trouble, so too is their knowledge. Given the relationship between the order of knowledge and the order of society, it’s no surprise that the other Big Thing now widely said to be in Crisis is liberal democracy. The Hobbesian Cui bono? question (Who benefits?) is generally thought pertinent to statecraft and commerce, so why shouldn’t there be dispute over scientific deliverances emerging, and thought to emerge, from government, business, and institutions advertising their relationship to them? — Harvard historian of science Steve Shapin, Is There a Crisis of Truth?

All of this leads me to conclude that the hubbub over misinformation is a campaign for more power rather than a legitimate plight for public safety. — NOS4A2

Freedom of speech is not the same as the first amendment, I'm afraid, so its a mistake to equate the two. That's fine, it's a common error. — NOS4A2

The US isn't the only country in the world. At any rate, this isn't about the United States and its legal system. — NOS4A2

I do have a problem with that. The consequences of speech, for instance, is air and sound coming out of the mouth. To be fair, I'm willing to subject myself to a test if you wish to promote your harm theory. Let's see which injuries you can inflict on me with your speech. — NOS4A2

I put a link in the original post. It's old, so it may be out of date, but it shows how people and journalists around the world are being placed in jail on the premisses you advocate. — NOS4A2

It's not a mistake and your response is disingenuous. There is no freedom of speech beyond what protections government or other institutions provide. Are you suggesting there should be? Are you suggesting people shouldn't be held accountable for what they say? Are you suggesting there should be no consequences for libel or slander? Are you suggesting the government should get involved in protecting freedom of speech beyond what they already do? What exactly are you suggesting?

As I asked before, are you suggesting that people shouldn't be accountable for what they say? That I shouldn't be able to sue you if you lie about me in a way that causes me harm? If that's what you mean, you should be clearer. It would involve a radical rewriting of civil law in the US and every other country in the world. Is that what you think is needed?

Another false statement. The article you linked to identifies no country in North and South America or western Europe except France and Italy that have potentially significant restrictions. Indications of people being put in jail are primarily located in authoritarian countries in Africa and Asia. Is that it? You're worried about press freedom in Burkina Faso?

You've just made up this whole issue so you can paint your preferred right-wing political cohort as unjustly persecuted.

All of this leads me to conclude that the hubbub over misinformation is a campaign for more power rather than a legitimate plight for public safety. — NOS4A2

All of this leads me to conclude that the hubbub over misinformation is a campaign for more power rather than a legitimate plight for public safety. — NOS4A2

https://www.voltage.cloud/blog/nostr-the-decentralized-censorship-resistant-messaging-protocol

Nostr: The Decentralized, Censorship-Resistant Messaging Protocol

In a world where centralized entities increasingly control digital communication, the demand for more transparent, private, and censorship-resistant systems is growing. One of the technologies that promise to deliver this independence is Nostr, a decentralized messaging protocol.

What sets Nostr apart from other messaging services is its decentralized nature. Unlike centralized platforms—where data is stored and managed by a single organization, like a corporation or a government—Nostr doesn't rely on a single server or entity. Instead, it distributes data across a network of peers (nodes known as relays) that participate in storing and transmitting messages.

Why should we worry about misinformation? — NOS4A2