This is an important discussion. I'm so glad to see so many people weighing in.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Richard Brooks <r...@g.clemson.edu> wrote: > >> Should it allow antifa? Should it include racists? > > > > If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently > > well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing > > damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible > > with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights > > etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need > > moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing > > their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to > > really have online democracy - simplifications may fail. > > > You are begging the question. Who makes those rules? > If it is the majority, then 50 years ago gay speech > (let alone transgender) would have been suppressed. > > How do you deal with the tyranny of the majority? > And the hecklers veto? Are pro-nazi statements > permitted (in the US, yes. In Germany with a > constitution written in large part by the US, > no.) > > Saying that it is possible to define a set of rules, > ignores the issue of who defines the rules and > how minority rights are protected. > > And allowing a majority mob-rule is not an answer, > either. > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/ > mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change > password by emailing the moderator at zakwh...@stanford.edu. >
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at zakwh...@stanford.edu.
