I was alarmed to find a quotation supporting child rapists falsely attributed to me & going viral on Twitter. … messages shaming me for supporting child rapists. … I tweeted a clarification about the falsehood to no avail. (
He is not projecting anything, he is just pointing out the double standard.
No civilized person wants mob justice.
"Very few people are capable of the kind of non-emotional abstract thinking"
Most people are *capable* of non-autistic behavior.
Additionally, alternative media sources are not just a megaphone to mob rules as a way to increase viewership/clicks, but also cut into revenue and viewship of previously more considered media sources which in turn have had to be less cautious -- there is probably a willingness to be less cautious, but that isn't the only variable.
Why not thought crime?1. Prosecutorial discretion. 2. Don't feed the trolls. Show trials are more likely if the mob is placated with a trial to begin with. Judicial independence could be neutered by an act of Congress restricting the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts; a consistent supermajoritydoesn't actually have to put up with logic and consistent legal standards.
Repealing NYT v. Sullivan and restoring libel as an actual possible consequence for spreading falsehoolds might be a good idea, but it isn't going to protect against bad faith assumptions and oversimplifications leading to misunderstandings and unfair negative opinions.
TL;DR -- Making other people's stupidity subject to adjudication as if their stupidity is a civil rights violation? Pathetic!
Entirely right. Another example is the kangaroo courts for rape established on college campuses. It is precisely because the law attempts to obey objective standards of evidence that these courts have been established. For the mobs, the lack of need to prove their accusations is a feature rather than a bug.
This article shows the disappointing blind spot I've come to expect from Hanson, who is so brilliant in other ways. That is his faith in institutions to mold humans, who he seems to see as interchangeable. There is supposed to be an institution that is somewhat analogous to Hanson's conception: the mainstream media. Any idiot can compose a tweet, but the mainstream media is supposed to do things like "fact-checking" and "getting both sides of the story." But it doesn't. It is supposed to moderate the mob, but instead it is usually the leader, as it was in Hanson's case. It stands to reason that if there were an institution to adjudicate cases like Hanson's, it would become dominated by the same type of people who dominate the U.S. mainstream media, and they would treat their idealized role with the same amount of respect the media treats its duty to be politically neutral.
Ultimately, free speech, both in the legal sense and in the sense of a culture where difference of opinion is valued, is the outgrowth of a specific culture, that of the Anglo-Saxons. It is rare both historically and contemporaneously. But the classic Anglo-Saxon universalism, of which Hanson is a great example, has led the Anglo-Saxons to give up control over their countries, and I rather doubt free speech will survive this shift in power. Instead, it will go the way of the laughed-at constitutions of post-colonial Africa, a painful lesson that the people make the institutions and not the other way around.
You think "justice" has anything with to do (most) mobs?
Even the low quality comments here makes me sad. I mean Internet is full of low quality comments. What makes me sad is that people who are obviously brilliant in one field can still be rather foolish in other subjects. Tyler Cowen gave a great talk about this.
Very few people are capable of the kind of non-emotional abstract thinking. If this was physics, we would have falling bridges and rockets. As much I hate credentials (alas signaling) I hope there would be a way to improve discourse especially on abstract things like these.
I mean philosophers are talking about *killing* people with trains and stuff. Those murderous philosophers. Don't they know that humans are not instruments of their sadistic violent fantasies!11 And certainly not commodities! Call in the mob!
Robin, how would your proposal here differ from what most countries had before the notion of formalized freedom of speech?
Before that, smart people made (and usually carried) arguments for formal censorship. Wouldn't they have made the same points?
In a sense, haven't we already tried it both ways? And, if so, I think there's an argument that formalized free speech (with informal social censure) has worked out better.
Isn‘t mob rule behavior about signaling and not about actual behavior and so would still happen no matter what the law forbids?
The Supreme Court seems to be willing to let arguments of "national security" override (hence comparisons to yelling fire in a crowded theater), but "thought crime" is typically a different category.
Of course. My point is the accused would have to do that, and it's absurd to assume you could get everyone of the mob to go to arbitration. It's as absurd to assume the mob would organise itself and initiate arbitration, and act only then, and in accordance with the outcome of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court has never enforced First Amendment protections when it actually mattered to a real "mob." See generally Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (2004). First Amendment jurisprudence instead perversely focuses on _unimportant_ speech rights, like wedding cakes, nude dancing, and flag burning.
But even putting that aside, the fact that there are antimajoritarian rights safeguarded by the US Constitution and courts is no answer to the charge law derives from the mob, because those antimajoritarian rights stem from a particularly successful mob - the supermajority that ratified the bill of rights.
Philip - No, what 'Jeb Bush' is saying is that one could hire an arbitrator (for example, a retired federal judge) and possibly jury and get them to engage in detailed fact-finding or argument-weighing, just as a court would.
Anti-pornography laws were successful for a long time - and it's still legally risky to produce images that *look* like children having sex, even if no actual children are involved.
Why didn't you share this opinion *before* your host stumbled into infamy?