Let’s say you’re a “benevolent dictator” with complete power over legislative and judicial processes. What laws would exist involving speech(public square and private)? What would punishments look like (if any)?
Let’s say you’re a “benevolent dictator” with complete power over legislative and judicial processes. What laws would exist involving speech(public square and private)? What would punishments look like (if any)?
I wonder if there could be some kind of way to allow violence-inciting speech on the condition that the speaker waives their own legal right to protection from violence
I mean realistically it probably wouldn’t work but it sure would be nice to be able to legally curb stomp fascists
the biggest problem with banning an ideology is that its followers can use suppression as a way to appeal to the disillusioned with the argument, “our ideology is so powerful that ‘they’ use bans and censorship to hide it from you!”
so this hypothetical tit-for-twat model defangs that argument. “sure, go ahead, try being a nazi. see how far you get before you find out.”
Hm then how would we ensure people are verifying the person they’re curb stomping is a qualifying member of an unprotected group? Maybe some sort of database system where they have to legally affirm they’re a piece of shit who is waiving their right to not get the snot kicked outta them?
lol idk. try not to take any of this too seriously, I’m just doing a hamfisted attempt at participating in philosophy