How have I abused my position? You obeyed, so I didn't punish you, and I might not have even threatened to punish you for disobeying. The only thing I've done is uttered the phrase "throw Trump in prison". You may (correctly or incorrectly) believe that you would be punished for disobeying, but I haven't done or said anything to that effect.

I don’t believe that, nor do I know why anyone would. There is a chain of command, and an expectation that subordinates follow their superior’s orders. All involved are aware of the chain of command, and all involved are aware of the repercussions should the subordinate violate it.

Let’s not equivocate between acts of speech and speech acts. Uttering the phrase isn’t the only thing you’ve done.

So this doesn't work unless you want to say that, by virtue of my position, the very utterance "throw Trump in prison" is the abuse of power and ought be punished, in which case you accept the principle that some speech acts ought be restricted, even if the restriction depends both on content and the relative "positions" of the speaker and the audience (whereas others might think that content alone is sufficient).

I don’t think the utterance is the abuse of power and ought to be punished. If you uttered the same phrase, but were joking or being sarcastic, then that expectation to follow orders might be absent, and in that case the command need not be followed; therefore no one is harmed. If the illocutionary act was a “directive”, under the assumption that one ought not violate his chain of command, then everyone ought to be aware of that before they begin to even think of punishment.

Admittedly “abuse of power” doesn’t outline any real crime. I guess it's just a political term of art. That’s why I believe the only “punishment” for that specific act ought to be decided at the ballot box.

I am looking at the examples you and others have given - which is always of an authoritarian state. — Harry Hindu

I'm not sure what you mean? Nazi Germany was not authoritarian before it became authoritarian and it's how it became authoritarian where these things happen. It's the erosion of free speech through the absolute tolerance of all speech that enables the radicalization of people to the point of them then standing behind authoritarian restrictions.

They did not use free speech to change the perception. They limited opposing viewpoints to change the perception of the population. — Harry Hindu

You are still talking about the end game authoritarian state, not how it got to that point. If you had a group in society which just started limiting opposing viewpoints it would rally the people against them, this is not how a free society evolves into an authoritarian state.

Here's what I wrote above to further explain:

the Nazis changed the definitions of Germanness and culture by championing free speech absolutism to enable their manipulation of the population through propaganda that eroded the freedom of speech down to controlled speech based on what the Nazis decided to be allowed, changing the perception of the population into agreeing with that limitation on freedom of speech.

This way of using the idea of championing something good, like freedom of speech, in order to position themselves in opposition of the bad (those who wanted to limit certain speech that promoted the Nazis worldviews) weaponized freedom of speech absolutism in order to form the perception of the Nazis as being champions for good against those who "tried to silence them", while using the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly radicalize the people in a way that any critic would be polarized into being an enemy of the "good side".

This is the path that the tolerance paradox is talking about. That freedom of speech absolutism is an utopian ideal that ignores that over time there will be those who can take advantage of it to begin radicalizing people in a way that is hard to combat as the very nature of its absolute state makes any critics who tries to stop such radicalization an enemy of freedom of speech rather than combating the radicalization of the people. — Christoffer

You're not taking into account everything I have said in my post to you. — Harry Hindu

That's not the problem, the problem is that you misunderstand the core premise and confuse the authoritarian state with the pre-authoritarian state that leads to it. Misunderstanding that makes you misunderstand my argument.

I said that we need to revamp our education system and the way the media disseminates information, remember? - that part that you did not quote in your response to me, which just makes your response a straw-man? — Harry Hindu

Here's the full thing of what you said in response to me:

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash them? I don't think this logic holds.
— Christoffer

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives.

Yes, yes, and yes. We need to revamp our education system, the way the media disseminates information and abolish political parties (group-think and group-hate). — Harry Hindu

First part is a misunderstanding of my argument, focusing on the end-state of the authoritarian state, not how it becomes such a state. Second part is describing how in a free society people would not be fooled or radicalized because there's always access to a counter-point; which I noted isn't how things works as that's not how people operate psychologically. Just having an opposite voice in society does not mitigate radicalization or preventing society to change into authoritarianism.

The reason I didn't quote the thing about the educational system is that it seems disconnected from the argument itself. The first two parts speak of authoritarianism and how the existence of opposite voices would prevent people from being fooled or radicalized. A revamp to the educational system doesn't really have a logical following. And I agree that many privatized media outlets and political parties polarize more than help society, but what revamp to education would help with that I don't follow because that's a bit vague what that entails? As well as the fact that we also have media in the world that do not polarize and that should be championed in opposition to the privatized media who holds agendas. And that there still has to be something instead of political parties if society is to function. So that last part is more confusing to answer as it doesn't really follow the first two premises.

Again, that was not my proposed solution - you know - the part you left out of my post that you are responding to. I said that we need to change the way the media (all media) disseminates information. All these straw-men are wasting my time. — Harry Hindu

I don't think you use the straw-man here in the correct way. I'm not strawmanning, I just think it's vaguely argued. What revamp should be made to the educational system? What is the problem with how legacy media spread information (all media is not partisan media)? and what will be instead of political parties?

I'm not really sure of what the solution is here? I answered what I could interpret of your argument, that's not a strawman, it may be a misunderstanding of what you argued, but then explain it further then. A strawman is deliberately misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to counter, not misunderstanding an argument because it was too vague in its conclusion.

Now you have to define what intolerance means - and who gets to define it. If you are saying that one part of the political spectrum gets to define what "intolerance" means then you are no different than the fascist you claim to be fighting against. It appears to me that we could imprison many people on these forums for being "intolerant" of other's views and use of words. — Harry Hindu

I think you need to read up on the tolerance paradox first to get what I'm talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It's not about politics, or which spectrum of politics "gets to decide". You are politicizing it when it's not a political issue at its core, but rather about the nature of a free society regardless of politics. The definition of intolerance is at its core that which tries to limit others freedom of speech, and it's why it's called a paradox since the solution more or less leads to limiting others speech.

But that's why I mentioned it in a Kantian perspective, that if we are able to universalize the first message in a chain of speech, we know if it is in favor of intolerance or tolerance. If an expression under freedom of speech criticize a systemic problem of a group in society, that is universalized as a critique of a system that does not have speech in of itself. If you on the other hand criticize the people themselves in that system as the problem, you are aiming to limit the speech of people and not limit problems of a system. It makes it easier to find out what in speech should be tolerated and what should not be tolerated to protect freedom of speech.

But that's a very simplistic example of it. In general, it's the people who are able to deconstruct what is being said in society who are best able to spot what should be tolerated or not. Which is basically what we've already done in society. It's a process of discerning the morality of rhetoric and topics and continuously updating what we define as hate-speech and intolerance that defends the free society we have.

And that is a direct result out of the philosophies that Popper was part of laying out in the post-war era. There's a reason why many of those, like Elon Musk, who champion free speech absolutism, in the end clearly limits free speech. They use the concept of free speech absolutism to vilify the process of discerning what is intolerance in society, even though our society has become a much better place to live in because of exactly this continuous process to discern what is what. It's a way to enable themselves to say things that we consider hate-speech or to use rhetoric that slowly radicalize without anyone able to stop them as they can then point to such attempts and say "they are the bad guys, not us, we stand for freedom of speech while they want to limit us", as part of their radicalization process of people on their side. This is exactly how it went in Germany before it became a Nazi authoritarian state.

Freedom of speech absolutism does not have limits on anything, that's the core of that ideal. There are no consequences for what you are saying, because it's absolutism. I'm not sure people really understands what the "absolutist" state of it means. It means that someone could say they want to legalize the actions of pedophiles or send be able to send death threats without repercussion. Or... which is the entire point of the tolerance paradox... tell people that "those people should not be able to vote, should not be able to speak up and they should be silenced", effectively eroding freedom of speech. It's this progression of the absolute state of freedom of speech that eventually leads to limiting freedom of speech, absolute tolerance into intolerance, free society into authoritarianism.

@NOS4A2

I deleted my comment from a few seconds ago because I think I misinterpreted you.

Uttering the phrase isn’t the only thing you’ve done. — NOS4A2

What else have I done?

Admittedly “abuse of power” doesn’t outline any real crime. I guess it's just a political term of art. That’s why I believe the only “punishment” for that specific act ought to be decided at the ballot box. — NOS4A2

Then let's not consider some elected official. Ought the employee who falsely accuses (and knowingly so) his colleague of theft be fired? Ought the intelligence agent who verbally reveals classified national security information to a stranger in the pub be arrested?

Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?

Even if we were to suspend reality for the sake of your example, you still need to explain how the idea of free speech defined as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions" is reconciled with the idea that everyone has the right to free speech, which includes questioning authority and criticizing what others say because your examples are all of those in some authoritative position dictating to others, or manipulating others (in your new example) that lack the correct information. The solution to all of your examples it to have a more informed population - where all views are free to be expressed and criticized, not less free speech. — Harry Hindu

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

We ought be allowed to question authority and criticise what others say, but we ought not be allowed to defame (slander/libel), reveal classified information, or encourage others to commit certain (esp. violent) criminal acts, etc.

A well-functioning society depends on some restrictions on what one can and cannot say. Free speech absolutism (like many libertarian ideals, e.g. "no taxes!") is a naive fantasy that any reasonable person should understand is unworkable (and unethical, if consequentialism is correct).

These are two different things. You can have the ability to question authority and disagree with others AND also face repercussions when you are completely out of line. This is why I outlined a restrictive point of view and a Absolutist point of view. — Samlw

They are only separate things in an authoritarian society - where a select few get to say what they want without repercussions - when there is no counter to what is being said.

Whilst people disagreeing and questioning is technically a repercussion, I would consider it more of people exercising their rights as much as you,(and if you are an absolutist you would also agree). I would also not put it on the same level as jail time / community service. — Samlw

Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech.

So whilst I understand how it may come across as contradictory if you look at it at face value, I think you have to accept that people disagreeing is going to be a fundamental certainty but it should not mean that you can be extreme or push hatred. — Samlw

But it is not a certainty when you are not informed of other views that contradicts what is being said. Essentially what is happening is the suppression of free thought, which is the basis of free speech.

In all the examples provided thus far, would the people be incited if they had access to all the information? If there wasn't a riot, would the speaker still be arrested for what they said?

If children are informed what grooming is, will they not know what to look for when someone is attempting to groom them? One of my children was separated from us while at Disney when they were young. Before this, I explained what they should do if they ever get lost in a large area with a lot of people. They should go inside one of the stores, look for a female employee, not some random stranger, and tell them they lost their parents. This is exactly what my daughter did, and she was 6 or 7 at the time, and we were reunited within an hour. By being informed she made the right decisions and limited her risk of some random malevolent stranger kidnapping her.

I'm not sure what you mean? Nazi Germany was not authoritarian before it became authoritarian and it's how it became authoritarian where these things happen. It's the erosion of free speech through the absolute tolerance of all speech that enables the radicalization of people to the point of them then standing behind authoritarian restrictions. — Christoffer

The method by which it attained power was by suppressing alternative views - by keeping the citizens uninformed of viable alternatives. The moment they were able to suppress any opposing viewpoints, they held power over the people.

You are still talking about the end game authoritarian state, not how it got to that point. If you had a group in society which just started limiting opposing viewpoints it would rally the people against them, this is not how a free society evolves into an authoritarian state. — Christoffer

Yet people in society were incited by what someone said, even when opposing viewpoints are available. It was because the information was suppressed that people were incited. If the rioters had the correct information and still rioted, who would be at fault?

Second part is describing how in a free society people would not be fooled or radicalized because there's always access to a counter-point; — Christoffer

Just look at the political discussions on this forum. Most people on the left and right live in bubbles where they only get information from one side. There isn't always a counter-point if they live in a bubble, hence my solution to change the way the media disseminates information and abolishing political parties. Again, if the rioters had access to the counter-point and still rioted, how would that change the culpability of who started the riot?

Freedom of speech absolutism does not have limits on anything, that's the core of that ideal — Christoffer

You are confusing freedom of speech absolutism with authoritarian speech - where you are ignoring that free speech entails the ability to question what is said, and the rioters did not have that, and possibly didn't care that they didn't. The only absolutism of free speech is the absolute capacity to question authority. Even then I might not say absolute as any criticism needs to be well founded and logical, but then I might ask, if criticism is not well founded and logical, is it really criticism or a straw-man?

The fact is that Popper and other philosophers of his time recognized through what happened in 1930s Germany, freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand. It was part of a powerful toolset of reprogramming a population's core beliefs and it's still a powerful tool today when the way its used isn't recognized.

So when we speak about freedom of speech absolutism, its history and the philosophy around that subject, that's not an attack on your personal beliefs, it's a deconstruction of the subject. When you lash out in the way you do, that just perfectly shows us the cognitive dissonance at play. The inability to form a proper argument, the constant emotional, arrogant and childish bully-speak... how can anyone take you seriously when that's the level you operate on? If you're unable to form an actual argument and just attack, you're shown you are unable to discuss this topic further and only operate on the low-quality level that this forum have rules against

Weimar Germany had very advanced speech laws and the Nazis were censored on many occasions. Numerous Nazi and other publications were shut down. Hitler himself was banned from speaking publicly for several years in many parts of Germany.

“He alone of two billion people on Earth may not speak in Germany”, said Goebbels of Hitler in his propaganda posters. He used the censorship of the Nazis as propaganda to great effect. Hitler used his persecution as justification to persecute others, to abuse the very same laws used against him in order to suppress his political opponents. Goebbels was sued for libel by Jewish organizations and the chief of police. Julius Streicher was imprisoned and his anti-Jewish publication Der Sturmer was routinely shut down. So it just isn’t the case that “freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand”. It was censorship all the way down.

It was censorship all the way down. — NOS4A2

So can there be good censorship, as opposing the notion that all censorship is bad? And this question comes from the tensions and difficulties that arise whenever absolute anything is considered. The ultimate for any answer in absolute terms is either-or. Far better to dissolve it all in neither-nor. And this yields that for the most part, free speech is good, and on occasion censorship is good. And where they collide, a closer look in order. common sense on a topic appropriate for common sense, and not in any way absolutely provable - and a mistake to try.

I do not think there is any good censorship just as I do not think there is any good prohibition on drinking water or falling in love. Speaking or otherwise communicating is a basic, non-violent act that humans require to live and enjoy living.

I do not think there is any good censorship just as I do not think there is any good prohibition on drinking water or falling in love. — NOS4A2

Now you're being foolish. There's water that's drinkable and water that isn't. And not all falling in love is for the best.

But consider: you have a psychotic friend, he without mens rea. He has a gun and is menacing a stranger, perhaps hallucinating. He says to you that he does not know what to do and would you tell him what to do: should he shoot the stranger? And you, a free speech absolutist, say yes, shoot him. Which he does. Should you have been censored? Should you be subject to criminal/civil penalties? Or perhaps I can invite and encourage someone to shoot you - you'd be good with that?

I know how my community answers, and I suspect how yours does as well. But if you don't believe in even this as a circumstance justifying either prior restraint or after-the-fact penalty, what would be your justification?

And you, a free speech absolutist, say yes, shoot him. Which he does. Should you have been censored? Should you be subject to criminal/civil penalties? — tim wood

Very interested in this, as I have seen compelling versions of an ambulance at the bottom of the hill argument. I noted it earlier in the thread, I think. But I want to know if NOS4A2 is on that page, or whether he thinks that no result of speech acts can be admonishable. I should think that even a free speech absolutist would understand that your speech can cause things to happen.
As example for @NOS4A2 in law, we have "promissory estoppel". This is, essentially, a consequence which is disadvantageous to you, because you siad something that someone else relied on to carry out an action (usually entering a contract, but I digress). Is it your view that this is illegitimate? It is censorship by other means (still by Act, but applies to Lawyers specifically in context of being a lawyer doing law stuff).

I should think that even a free speech absolutist would understand that your speech can cause things to happen.

What substances or objects can you move with your speech? What phases of matter can you affect with your voice, your words, or any other symbolic communication? Personally I can’t think of any, save for the measurable, like the expelling of breath, the movement of sound waves, or the scratching of ink into paper. If you can mention any I’m willing to test it out and I’ll report back with my findings. Cheers.

What substances or objects can you move with your speech? — NOS4A2

The brain states of listeners. You could read up on speech perception for more technical information on the physics of neural activity responding to auditory stimulation.

Unless you believe that the mind is some non-physical substance that can somehow gain information from sound without being causally affected by it?

The brain states of listeners. You could read up on speech perception for more technical information on the physics of neural activity responding to auditory stimulation.

Unless you believe that the mind is some non-physical substance that can somehow gain information from sound without being causally affected by it?

I do believe in biology. Brain states and mind? Not so much, though I do not begrudge their application in common use.

I’m fully aware that humans recognize and understand speech and language. My only contention is that the listener is the cause of his listening, his understanding, and his reaction to language. The speaker is unable to cause those acts because each act has its genesis in the listener, not in the speaker.

As an example, the hairs in the ear tranduce the mechanical stimulus of a sound wave of speech into a nerve impulse, as it does all sounds. The words do not transduce themselves. But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

The human body is not a Rube Goldberg machine and listening and understanding and reacting to speech is not a passive act. So though I would concede that someone can affect another’s eardrums with speech, like any other wave of sound, the cause of all later acts is the listener.

But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin. — NOS4A2

This seems to me like saying that if I kick a football through a window then I didn’t cause the window to break, as if I’m causally responsible only for kicking the ball and not also for what the ball does to the window after being kicked.

Your suggestion that this sequence of events is one causal chain, that this subsequent sequence of events is a second causal chain, and that there's no causal connection between the two is both incompatible with physics and a seemingly arbitrary delineation.

Brain states and mind? Not so much, though I do not begrudge their application in common use. — NOS4A2

A brain state is just the state of the brain, i.e its composition and the behaviour of its neurons. It is the way it is because of a long chain of causal events, both internal to the body and external. Our brains are not isolated systems.

you have to make an actual counter-argument. — Christoffer

I ... umm... did. There is no paradox about speech and I gave the argument. I am sorry that this isn't landing.

This is not a forum where you just say "I disagree" and leave it at that. — Christoffer

It certainly is. We can do all sorts of things, and this is one of them. I disagree (in this caes, you've either ignored or not groked the argument anyway - but ignoring that..). No more is needed. You can demand it all you want.

What about this is disingenuous? — Christoffer

I can't quite recall exactly what I was responding to there, but the point is that I think Popper is wrong. And patently so. I gave the argument (i will dredge it up at some point).

You seem so triggered by the philosophical discourse around free speech that you are unable to argue outside of whatever group you, yourself, has attached yourself to. — Christoffer

This is so utterly bizarre and childish. I was going to go through both responses, but fuck that lol.

As you were.

That sounds like a straw man argument. You're misrepresenting my position.

where a select few get to say what they want without repercussions - when there is no counter to what is being said. — Harry Hindu

Not at all am I saying that I only ever want one side of the story to be propagated and I will forever agree that people should be able to question authority

Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech. — Harry Hindu

Another straw man, I have not once disagreed with this

In all the examples provided thus far, would the people be incited if they had access to all the information? If there wasn't a riot, would the speaker still be arrested for what they said? — Harry Hindu

This is an extremely entitled view. Why do YOU need all the information, are you that special? Are you going to riot if you don't have all the information? I have already outlined why the initial information wasn't released to the public, should we change the law in place that protects minors because racist people will riot if they are not immediately told EVERYTHING.

This is where absolutism falls apart in my opinion, because you have to defend the indefensible. I am not saying people should not be able to question authority. I think if you were to look at exactly what I would allow and not allow it would probably be you can say 99.99% of things. but that 0.01% is filled with hatred and it doesn't do any favour to society to allow it to exist.

The Issue comes when you have to decide who choses what is acceptable and what isn't, which I completely understand and it is where my argument falls apart. Both sides have a crippling factor in their ideals and I understand why people would rather let everyone say anything rather then risk having their freedom taking away from a governing body constantly moving the goalposts.

The method by which it attained power was by suppressing alternative views - by keeping the citizens uninformed of viable alternatives. The moment they were able to suppress any opposing viewpoints, they held power over the people. — Harry Hindu

I think you need to look into the entire progression of what happened. You're still looking at the tail-end of the transition into authoritarianism. It began with the Nazis championing absolute free speech in order to paint those who wanted to silence them as the suppressors of free speech, and through their championing of free speech absolutism they could slowly erode the publics perceptions and radicalize people into standing behind their definitions of what is allowed to be said.

This is Hitler in the 20s:

We asked nothing of the world but equal rights, just as we asked for the same rights at home. At home we demanded the right to meet freely, the right which the others possessed. We demanded the right of free speech, the same right as a parliamentary party as the others held. We were refused and persecuted with terrorism. Nevertheless, we built up our organization and won the day.... — Hitler

I don't think you look at the transition into authoritarianism in the logical way it historically and psychologically happens, i.e you have to get the public behind your suppression of free speech in some way before you do it. They have to back you up suppressing society in the way you want, and the best way to do it is to first role play as the good side and then when you start to suppress society you do it in a way that includes all people who supported you. That way these people will feel like they are on the "good side of history". This is radicalization 101.

As you can see in that speech, Hitler positioned himself and his party as being suppressed and as championing free speech to allow them to spread their propaganda which eventually eroded the public into a radicalized state. The power of that rhetoric is that he gained power by putting himself in the position of standing up for free speech, not suppression.

It was only after he was elected that through the Reichstag Fire Decree they changed the Weimar constitution to start suppress society, but people supported them in doing so, because he'd convinced them of him and his party being on the good side. That it was an emergency change to protect society.

You are only speaking of what Hitler and the Nazis did post the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, when they already reached the point of having the people's support in suppressing free speech, it does not happen without the public standing behind you and for that you need a narrative that works. This strategy was what was criticized by Popper and other philosophers as being the absolutist state of free speech that eventually erodes free speech itself.

Yet people in society were incited by what someone said, even when opposing viewpoints are available. It was because the information was suppressed that people were incited. If the rioters had the correct information and still rioted, who would be at fault? — Harry Hindu

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. I'm saying that if a political party were to suppress freedom of speech directly without anything leading up to it, people would notice and oppose it in much greater numbers. But by eroding who the public think champions free speech, you can place people in the bubble that supports your side because you paint yourself as the champion of freedom in opposition to those who want to limit your speech. That way you gain numbers in followers so that when you tell them that you will suppress what can be said and talked about in society, it is in their best interest and that it's for their protection in order to protect their freedom. This is exactly how it went for Hitler and the Nazis and how they gained true power.

Just look at the political discussions on this forum. Most people on the left and right live in bubbles where they only get information from one side. There isn't always a counter-point if they live in a bubble, hence my solution to change the way the media disseminates information and abolishing political parties. Again, if the rioters had access to the counter-point and still rioted, how would that change the culpability of who started the riot? — Harry Hindu

This forum consist of people from all over the world. And I would rather say that the forum holds a rather good balance in the debates, disregarding a few very obvious ones. People cannot rid themselves of biases completely and abolishing political parties will do nothing to change the fact that people attach to different biases. Abolishing and ripping something up by the roots in order to replace it with something "better" will always lead to the animal farm scenario if the people doing so doesn't have a deep insight into how biases and psychology play into things and how to oppose those taking advantage of chaos.

But nothing of this has to do with the topic at hand really. Free speech absolutism vs restricted speech is more about the tolerance paradox than biased opinions. Opposing views does not change someone's bias in a straightforward way, and free speech absolutism has more to do with how very specific, radical, and extremist views take root in an open society.

The problem is that people don't think about freedom of speech absolutism towards its logical conclusion, and rather buy into the narratives that extremists use to give themselves free reign to spread hate.

Free speech without the absolutist state of it does not limit free speech. A non-absolutist version of free speech just requires more effort to recognize when the line has been crossed. So it's more about people leaning towards that which requires the least energy and effort, i.e the lazy. Instead of letting freedom of speech be something that is actually defended.

You are confusing freedom of speech absolutism with authoritarian speech - where you are ignoring that free speech entails the ability to question what is said, and the rioters did not have that, and possibly didn't care that they didn't. The only absolutism of free speech is the absolute capacity to question authority. Even then I might not say absolute as any criticism needs to be well founded and logical, but then I might ask, if criticism is not well founded and logical, is it really criticism or a straw-man? — Harry Hindu

How am I confusing the two? You are placing this into a binary construct that doesn't exist. I'm not really sure what you are arguing here. Free speech absolutism is not what you think it is. It's not "normal" free speech, it's a foundation of giving extremists free reign and a form of free speech that eventually always lead to intolerance and authoritarianism. This is what Popper argued, that the absolute state of freedom of speech leads to limited speech, that's the paradox he talked about. That in order to have free speech there must be limitations specifically on those who try to dismantle or manipulate the public by the means of freedom of speech absolutism.

I don't understand why you keep mentioning strawman all the time when I do understand that you try to juxtapose authoritarianism against freedom of speech absolutism and that the latter would grant the freedom to oppose authoritarianism, but that is a very simplified observation of how society and people works, in the same way you ignore how the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s actually happened and just boil it down to "authoritarianism" as if it just popped into existence from nothing in 1933.

The question is about freedom of speech vs freedom of speech absolutism. Almost all functional societies and democracies today operate on a non-absolutist version of freedom of speech in which society do not tolerate the spread of hate speech and moderate the public sphere to be protected from those who tries to openly radicalize. Though the complexity of radicalization is a topic of its own, free speech absolutism is one of the greatest tools used by extremists.

I ... umm... did. There is no paradox about speech and I gave the argument. I am sorry that this isn't landing. — AmadeusD

Why did Popper call the concept a paradox of tolerance? You never addressed that (which is the paradox I'm referring to). What's the point in having any discussion with you when you continuously just ignore what is being talked about in a way that is convenient for you?

It certainly is. — AmadeusD

If you think so, then discussing anything with you is pointless as you will not add anything of value to a discussion. Rather than honestly engaging with the opposing argument, you ignore and just reiterate your original viewpoint. I see now that engaging with your posts will be pointless as you lack the philosophical grit to engage in discussions in honest.

I can't quite recall exactly what I was responding to there — AmadeusD

How convenient.

but the point is that I think Popper is wrong. And patently so. I gave the argument (i will dredge it up at some point). — AmadeusD

You didn't address the core premises of his argument or mine, you basically just said "I disagree" wrapped in the appearance of an argument. And it seems like it is pointless to ask for more as I'm not sure you know the actual difference.

This is so utterly bizarre and childish. I was going to go through both responses, but fuck that lol. — AmadeusD

No, it's you who acts bizarre and childish, and I think most people sees that.

This is an extremely entitled view. Why do YOU need all the information, are you that special? Are you going to riot if you don't have all the information? I have already outlined why the initial information wasn't released to the public, should we change the law in place that protects minors because racist people will riot if they are not immediately told EVERYTHING. — Samlw

Wasn't it your argument that they rioted BECAUSE they didn't know the race of the person? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

When you see minors out in public, is their sex and race private information or is that public information for anyone with eyes?

this is where absolutism falls apart in my opinion, — Samlw

Absolute speech is not free speech. Absolute speech is what authoritarians practice. Free speech is the capacity to question authoritarians, thereby placing limits on their absolute speech. This has been the main point I have been making all along.

Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech.
— Harry Hindu

Another straw man, I have not once disagreed with this — Samlw

Perfect. Then we agree on my main point as stated above.

As you can see in that speech, Hitler positioned himself and his party as being suppressed and as championing free speech to allow them to spread their propaganda which eventually eroded the public into a radicalized state. The power of that rhetoric is that he gained power by putting himself in the position of standing up for free speech, not suppression. — Christoffer

But if Hitler was really standing up for free speech then alternative views would have an equal amount of play-time on the radio waves. There must have been something that kept citizens from hearing alternative views, or that made alternative views to fascism less desirable. What was that? Would you be enthralled by Hitler's words to commit genocide? There were some that opposed Hitler and hid Jews at their own risk. What makes some people become spellbound by fascism and others not even though they hear the same rhetoric?

But if Hitler was really standing up for free speech then alternative views would have an equal amount of play-time on the radio waves. There must have been something that kept citizens from hearing alternative views, or that made alternative views to fascism less desirable. What was that? Would you be enthralled by Hitler's words to commit genocide? There were some that opposed Hitler and hid Jews at their own risk. What makes some people become spellbound by fascism and others not even though they hear the same rhetoric? — Harry Hindu

Yes, people spoke up, opposed, etc. but it was exactly that which became easy for Hitler and the Nazis to oppose by using free speech absolutism as a rhetoric. "See they want to silence us". I don't know how much you know about Germany, Hitler and the Nazis before the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, but they didn't argue for genocide but for changes to German politics trying to radicalize people into a new form of thinking about what it means to be German, and which later played into the antisemitism.

It looks more like you have a hindsight bias here, together with just mixing up history into a large mess rather than looking at the progression of politics and the fall into authoritarianism as a long process beginning at the end of the first world war.

Before the1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, nothing of what you think about Nazis and Hitler were true in the world. He was just a chaotic politician that was after the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree viewed as someone "who could become a real danger", in a similar way to how we look at someone like Putin right now. And to some degree Trump as well, seen as how he uses the same exact toolset as the Nazis did before the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree.

You have whole libraries of material to read about the psychology of the German population from the 20s into the 40s. I suggest you go into the details because it will explain why some becomes spellbound and others not. You can ask the same question about Trump and the MAGA movement today. Why are people being spellbound by an obvious narcissist who don't really care about them, yet they still view him as a deity? You have the seeds for a fascist state in the US right now, similar to 20s Germany. How it goes depends on how far Trump and his similars takes it, or how well the good people of the US stands up against it.

What I'm saying in this thread is that the absolute state of freedom of speech is an utopian delusion either by those who don't understand Poppers tolerance paradox, or those with a very simplistic understanding of society and social psychology, or who are simply using it like the extremists, to champion an ideal in which they can say whatever extreme views they have without consequences.

If you champion absolutism in this sense, then you are indeed arguing for no consequences for the speaker. They can say whatever they like without any consequence. If you look at this forum for example, how do you think it would look with an absolutist stance on freedom of speech? Well, Twitter/X gives a hint on exactly what happens. People are generally unable to act civil without laws and regulations and just as we judge morals in justice for actions, why shouldn't there be consequences for immoral speech? We already live in a society which does not operate on freedom of speech absolutism, yet do you feel limited? The only ones feeling limited seems to be those who actually want to spread hate, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other slurred language. Society is better off without them pouring toxics into the social sphere. And I don't think anyone would disagree with that, except those on that side of the fence.

So the question is rather, why would you defend the absolute state of freedom of speech without falling into the consequences that Popper lays out in his tolerance paradox?

Yes, people spoke up, opposed, etc. but it was exactly that which became easy for Hitler and the Nazis to oppose by using free speech absolutism as a rhetoric. "See they want to silence us". — Christoffer

But was the opposition really silencing them? If the citizens heard them both and the rhetoric from alternative views was not calling to silence anyone else, then the claims of the Nazis was not true and plain for everyone to see. Wasn't it more that the prior government was corrupt and the economic hardships from the depression that made them look for alternatives like the Nazis?

You have whole libraries of material to read about the psychology of the German population from the 20s into the 40s. I suggest you go into the details because it will explain why some becomes spellbound and others not. — Christoffer

But why couldn't you just post the answer here as to why some people are incited by speech and others are not? That is the critical question and you seem to be avoiding it. If you wrote all this other stuff but ignored the key question then it seems you are trying to play the same game Hitler was.

What I'm saying in this thread is that the absolute state of freedom of speech is an utopian delusion either by those who don't understand Poppers tolerance paradox, or those with a very simplistic understanding of society and social psychology, or who are simply using it like the extremists, to champion an ideal in which they can say whatever extreme views they have without consequences. — Christoffer

It is your view that is simplistic if you cannot answer how some people are incited by speech and others are not. Popper's paradox is solved by using logic to determine which arguments each side is making are valid or not. Abolishing political parties (group-think and group-hate) and making critical thinking a required course in school would go a long way in preventing things like fascism and communism from taking hold again. Limiting free speech (as the capacity to question and criticize authority) is not the problem. It is the solution.

I see this as asking whether the better society needs enforceable laws setting limits to our speech, or whether the best society should agree there can be no legislated limits on speech.

I’d break speech into two parts:
- what it says, or it’s content, what it is about.
- what it does, or the consequences of the act of “calling out X content.”

My answer is essentially what is the law in America. We can regulate speech based on its consequences, but we can not, with narrow exception, regulate speech based on its content.

Consider libel and slander laws.

Someone goes to the town square and yells: “X is a pedophile and has murdered three people!”
Then X gets fired from his job, loses his home, all because of those words.
X says “that’s not true - I am not a murderer pedophile.”
Now the question is whether the accusations were slander.

So this is four prongs to slander: 1 harm, 2 caused by, 3 words, 4 that are not true. (In court you would probably argue it in the following order: speech, that is untrue, that causes, harm.)

You need all four, but if you have all four, it seems like a legitimate and necessary function of government that, in order to resolve this conflict and make slander illegal, we place certain limits on speech. The court could demand a public retraction, forbid people from saying those words like that again, and make people pay for the money lost and damage caused.

You can say that looking at whether the words are true is looking at the content of the speech. But it can be slander to accuse anyone of anything that is not true. “He was at a MAGA rally.” Then he was fired, his Tesla burned, etc…”. It doesn’t matter what flavor or color the slander takes, it just has to be any words, that are not true, causing damages.

What about straight fraud?
“This snake oil will cure your cancer - give me $1000 and you will be cured.” We can’t let the guy who spends his money based on those words remain without recourse because the salesman says “I have the right to free speech.” Fraud is a type of speech that must be limited by law.

“Fire!” in a crowded building is another case. It’s the stampede that makes the harm because of words of incitement. “Riot starts at the police department!”

So we need laws to address direct harms caused from recklessly false or intentionally false speech, or speech that directly incites crimes.

BUT - laws against the content of speech in itself, regardless of consequences??

That is Orwellian. Newspeak. State controlled media. The end of all possibility of political, societal freedom.

Nevertheless, we still regulate speech based on content, even though it immediately tends towards totalitarianism.

Making pornography illegal for people under 18 years old is regulation of speech based on the content. Only by saying “that is pornography” can we then enforce a law for providing such content to a 12 year old. So with such laws on the books, we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother telling everyone what they can and cannot read and say to others.

I agree that we want to keep spaces free for audiences of all ages, and that requires content regulation, because not all content is for all audiences. So some minimal type of content based speech limiting laws are permissible. Protect minors is a good guideline to allow for narrow laws.

We want to protect religious speech spaces, and keep public spaces non-sectarian, meaning no specific religious or atheist or other “beliefs” can be favored by law.

Another content based speech limit is the law against threatening the life of the president. I don’t like that law, because a political opponent has to be able to say out loud “we will crush him, and his whole party in the next election!”

But it is probably a matter of how such a law gets enforced, because for someone to threaten the life of the president, if that was someone in the room with him, that might be like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

But anyway, the instant a law limiting speech based on content has the slightest possibility of influencing political speech, or any art, as long as that speech doesn’t incite actual “fire!!” it must be protected and allowed.

In summary, intending to incite nothing but maybe more discussion, fuck off if you don’t like my thoughts on free speech.