Freedom on the Internet

admin: The second thing is procedure. A dictatorship would function on the same principle of internet policing, as would any other form of government. It's not relevant to this thread to question what form of government is best.

Well, would you want a dictatorship policing the internet? If not, then the point stands.

I view government as society controlling itself, not some obscure elite controlling society. Regardless of who is administering them, limitations on speech are reasonable.
Society and government amounts to a collection of people trying to control each other, and one faction is always going to come on top. All other factions, are in a state of slavery as long as they are bound to the will of the most powerful faction.

You ignored my question earlier.

If you believe that laws are justified when they are supported by the majority of people, what is your justification for why the majority of people should be able to rule over the minority

Priest of Swag: Sure, if a dictatorship was the government, I'd want them policing the internet. If you look back to the OP though, the OP's only two options were no policing, and democratic policing. Between those options I prefer democratic policing. I ignored your question because it was not relevant.

admin: If you don't understand the relevance of the question, then you don't understand the argument. If you want to justify that the government does anything, then you must first justify the government.

But I am suprised that you would support a dictatorship policing the internet. Why?

Priest of Swag: Because limitations on free speech are justified as a principle. That's what a principle is.

I justify society regulating itself because I believe in self-determination by society. There you go.

admin: Your "principal" is based only on your own conjecture. If you are going to make an actual point, then do it. And your statement directly states that all limitations on free speech are justified, and I know you don't believe that. You've been all over the place in this thread.

You cannot believe in societies self determination, if you do not also believe in the self determination of every individual member of society. Every time you say society in conjunction with government, you are actually only referencing an element of society. Not the whole.

The fact that you don't get that is just amazing. It's just common sense, but for some reason you are all confused about it.

Priest of Swag: But some limitations are prosocial, some are antisocial. As I explained, the best interests of society is what it may be derived from.

No, I believe in social self-determination over and above individual. For example I think there should be an individual right to due process, because it protects the social right of judicial process. I reference the whole of society when I say government - if you disagree, you are either disagreeing with democracy or with procedure, both of which are not at issue in this discussion.

I'm not confused about anything, you just keep adding more and more irrelevant material.

admin: I reference the whole of society when I say government - if you disagree, you are either disagreeing with democracy or with procedure, both of which are not at issue in this discussion.

I am trying to tell if you are confused, so let me just spell this out for you as simple as I can.

Governments do not represent the interests of society as a whole. They only represent a fraction of people (whether it be a majority or minority) in one period of time. This is a truth.

You cannot support the self determination of society as a whole AND government at the same time.

At this point, I don't even think you know what you are talking about.

You claim that I keep bringing up irrelevant material.

I've been repeating myself over and over this whole thread. I haven't brought up a new contention outside my original points.

Are you incapable of connecting the dots?

Please, just get your head around it so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Priest of Swag: You do have a habit of repeating material as if it will bring anything. We're talking at cross purposes.

You're claiming governments are bad. My claim is that government == self determination of society as a whole. Both claims could be valid. It doesn't matter.

This discussion is not so much about who polices the internet.
It is about whether the internet should be policed.

admin: You're claiming governments are bad. My claim is that government == self determination of society as a whole. Both claims could be valid. It doesn't matter.

I'll brace myself for a very stupid explanation to a very stupid claim.

I am done giving good explanations to show why your opinion is foolish.

This discussion is not so much about who polices the internet.
It is about whether the internet should be policed.

Sometimes forum discussions take a turn. Get over it, and stop being an OP nazi.

Priest of Swag: You could make a new thread. Just saying. If you want to have a go at liberalism you really don't need to derail a free speech discussion to do so.