Chris Dixon
@cdixon.eth
Just as being pro free speech means supporting speech acts you might not like or believe in, being pro innovation means supporting research and development in areas you might not like or believe in.
29 replies
40 recasts
343 reactions
Chris Dixon
@cdixon.eth
There need to be legal limits on both, of course, but the guiding principle of those limits should be reducing harm and protecting society, not what you happen to like or believe in.
4 replies
3 recasts
66 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
The challenge of course is that this leads to a strong pressure to re-narrativize your pre-existing aesthetics as being deep wisdom about what reduces harm and protects society.
0 reply
2 recasts
4 reactions
ashesfall.eth
@ashesfall
I think advocates on all sides conflate two things, leading to confusion: what should the law *permit* (guided by your principle, surely) and what should the government support/endorse/lower barriers to/encourage or discourage via tax policy/etc. These must be separated: one is a matter of rights - the other of policy.
0 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
Breck Yunits
@breck
Why does there need to be legal limits?
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
law
@traguy.eth
You’re right about that…. Legal limits are real needed for safeguarding society, but they should focus on minimizing harm and ensuring safety, rather than personal preferences or beliefs. In short, these limits shouldn’t be for personal reasons but with an actual aim for the general good
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
