You do realize that much of the world, including much of the supposedly “civilized” world, has blasphemy laws on the books? What percentage of articles on LW (including their comment sections) do you think would run afoul of strict readings of such laws?
Also, I said “chill all speech”, not forbid it outright. If you’re forced, while writing, to wonder “is this violating some rule? Should I rephrase it to make it not violate?”, that’s what “chilled” speech means—forcing on you the cognitive burden of thinking in terms of “what won’t get me in trouble” rather than “what will communicate most effectively”
Or how about this: you characterized “Three Felonies a Day” as propaganda… I’m sure the author of the book would be quite upset to hear that. He might consider it to constitute some manner of defamation, or perhaps intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tortious interference perhaps? Disturbing the peace? YOUR COMMENT IS NOW BANNED!
You do realize that much of the world, including much of the supposedly “civilized” world, has blasphemy laws on the books? What percentage of articles on LW (including their comment sections) do you think would run afoul of strict readings of such laws?
Also, I said “chill all speech”, not forbid it outright. If you’re forced, while writing, to wonder “is this violating some rule? Should I rephrase it to make it not violate?”, that’s what “chilled” speech means—forcing on you the cognitive burden of thinking in terms of “what won’t get me in trouble” rather than “what will communicate most effectively”
Or how about this: you characterized “Three Felonies a Day” as propaganda… I’m sure the author of the book would be quite upset to hear that. He might consider it to constitute some manner of defamation, or perhaps intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tortious interference perhaps? Disturbing the peace? YOUR COMMENT IS NOW BANNED!