Monday, March 09, 2015

[kqsvuqhi] Point counterpoint

Governments typically censor speech deemed inflammatory, acting within their prerogative to prevent destabilization of society.  Modify such a policy such that such censorship may only be temporary, during which time the government may prepare counterbalancing speech to be released in conjunction with lifting the censorship of the speech in question.

Is such a policy good for a democracy?  On one hand, it is good to avoid knee-jerk bad policies induced by persuasive inflammatory speech.  On the other hand, there is a natural tendency of societies not to do anything even when something is wrong until there is some sort of crisis.  The best idea does not naturally win.  Inflammatory speech can induce action better than calm speech proposing a better idea.

No comments :