I am not arguing against free speech whatsoever. I’m arguing that people are not

I am not arguing against free speech whatsoever.
I’m arguing that people are not honest and moral and that most speech consists of either manipulation or deception or fraud – we simply justify it.

So, I’m explaining that there are rational incentives. for both the state and the population. The state could act immorally – but so can the people, or at least some segment of them.

The most common examples are:
(a) Popular Lying by saying “they’re shooting people” or “there is a bomb threat at x locations” where x locations favor one party or candidate or another.
or
(b) State Lying by denying they’re oppressing voters, closing voting stations, rigging votes or election places.

The question isn’t free speech. It’s free truthful speech. And when both the people and the state lie (Turkey is a low trust country), then we can either choose to risk by leaving the channel for mass communication open for all or closed for all, given that both the state and the people are incentivized to lie.

For all practical purposes, elections are not restitutable (reversible) except through revolt or civil war. As such all peoples must make a deliberate choice which risk to take given that both sides lie.

FWIW: your virtue signaling that we call ‘getting on your high horse’ is just lying that your side’s incentives to lie cheat and steal elections are any different from the other sides. This is a wonderful privilege each moral bias happily grants itself despite the evidence.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @zeyburay @TheSilentOG @elonmusk @krassenstein @mattyglesias