The same can be used to ban alcohol for everyone:
See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Addiction can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.
Now we have them exposed to substances that are arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. drug-related crime). At what point does their right to drink alcohol cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?
So are you ok with a new prohibition
maniclucky@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Not the gotcha you think it is. And also, big difference between bans and regulation, let’s not conflate them.
We install breathalyzers in cars and revoke licenses when people refuse to act responsibly. It’s a common requirement of probation and parole to remain sober. We do what you (/I) describe often. In fact, it’s kinda the basis of operation for law at large: we limit the behavior of individuals to reduce harm to people. Be it saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick”. So yeah, I’m OK with what you described. If people cannot mange their substances, we can and do force them to stop with punitive measures.
DarkMetatron@feddit.org 3 days ago
So your examples are all reactive while censoring older people would be proactive. That is a huge difference.
Oh and saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick” is not limiting the behavior of people, it is giving them information to change the behavior on their own… or they don’t and then they (and the people around them) have to live with the consequences.
The law the grants freedom of speech exists to protect opinions and texts that some (or even most) people find offending or don’t agree with. A law that only protects speech that everyone agrees with is a law not needed, because nobody will ever fight that words or wants to censor them.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
maniclucky@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Rights and freedoms are not unlimited. Freedom of speech ends at things that put people in danger (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded space). Guns are available pursuant to a well regulated militia (or should be, but let’s not open that can of worms).
I’ll grant the proactive/reactive in a sort of way. If anyone (not only old people drink the fox news poison) starts up with some hyper racist shit, is restricting them not reactive to their emergent behavior? Would it be that big a stretch to codify the effects of propaganda as a sort of mental injury that needs treated? (Yes it would). Point is, at this point we’re splitting this hair rather fine and getting away from the important bits.
So the real way to handle the propaganda is to punish fox and their ilk for being wildly irresponsible and setting up racist fascist bullshit. Corporations are much easier to regulate than individuals (theoretically). They should be sued into the ground for all they’ve done, but we live in an oligarchy so that’s not happening anytime soon. This shower thought emerges because free market capitalism refuses to have any morals whatsoever and people are desperate to stop the big companies from hurting everyone. And the thing that’s easiest for everyone to see is the people they love start repeating horrible things and being helpless to pull them out of the echo chamber.
No, the shower thought isn’t good. It shouldn’t get that far. But right now, the only thing we can affect is the people next to us because the rich are never held accountable, so we’re stuck with bad and worse solutions.