Something like a politician saying "Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose" or if you want, imagine an Imam doing the same.
If you want that to be allowed, and rely on human behaviour to reduce the out-going harm, so be it. I think this is patently absurd. — AmadeusD
I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said. — AmadeusD
I don’t think you’d get the responses you’re looking for. The repercussion is you’ll be known as a liar, slanderer, and a defamer. You’d also have to live with yourself. — NOS4A2
Kinetically speaking, causing damage with words is impossible. There isn’t enough energy in a word to inflict a wound on even the slightest of biologies. Perhaps yelling a word may harm an eardrum, but you could do the same with any sound.
The harms begin only in the reaction to words, and how people use them to justify their actions towards others. — NOS4A2
If I was passing by a school on the street and I started screaming really threatening stuff to the children on the other side of the gate, should I be arrested? — Samlw
Now, are you saying that certain groups in society shouldn't have the same rights as you based on who they are, or based on what they, specifically have done or said? — Christoffer
I think there is a fundamental difference between an assault and broadcasting ideas (even very unpalatable ideas) — Malcolm Parry
No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever. — NOS4A2
So the problem is that some people are gullible and stupid, not free speech. The problem is that one view was allowed to fester without being challenged. The solution seems to be more free speech, not less of it.You have to assume that some people are going to be gullible and stupid, — Samlw
What was the source of this "large-scale" disinformation? If it were large-scale then I would expect that there would be large-scale opposition if it were known at the time that it was disinformation. Where were the gullible and stupid receiving their information? If we were to pop the bubbles that the gullible and stupid live in by abolishing bias in the media, then would that solve the problem? This is not to say that the media can no longer express certain points of view, but that those views must be expressed in the context of other views and we have a competition of ideas in front of the entire population.the UK experienced numerous violent riots targeted towards minority communities due to large-scale disinformation being purposefully spread, — Samlw
No, I believe it is the contents of the message that needs to be looked at, you can be black, while, gay, straight, it doesn't matter, if what you are saying is deemed in a court of law to be an incitement of violence, defamatory, abusive etc. then I believe there needs to be consequences. — Samlw
What was the source of this "large-scale" disinformation? If it were large-scale then I would expect that there would be large-scale opposition if it were known at the time that it was disinformation. Where were the gullible and stupid receiving their information? If we were to pop the bubbles that the gullible and stupid live in by abolishing bias in the media, then would that solve the problem? This is not to say that the media can no longer express certain points of view, but that those views must be expressed in the context of other views and we have a competition of ideas in front of the entire population. — Harry Hindu
I know, I was seeing what NOS4A2 had to say about that as he believes:
No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever.
— NOS4A2 — Samlw
If it shouldn't be up to a court of law and a Jury of peers who should it be up to? — Samlw
I find it hilarious that you think that the best way to combat slander and defamation is to call someone a liar and let them carry on the rest of their lives... living with themselves. What if you wronged me and I didn't care? I could make up so much terrible stuff about you and completely ruin your life and wouldn't miss a second of sleep about it, if I disliked you that much it may even help me sleep at night knowing that I ruined your life... You simply cannot allow someone to do that with no repercussions.
Can I ask what you think about NDA's? Surely you don't think a piece of paper can stop you from speaking as well. What about Classified information? should there be repercussions for breaching these?
I find that Free speech absolutists ignore the damage you can do with words.
Technically speaking you are correct, words cannot cause harm and the harm comes through reactionary actions.
This is a similar justification with gun violence, "Guns don't kill people, people do". I feel like both are absolving the blame on one factor and piling it all on another factor simply because it fits their narrative. Speech can be used as a tool to: Incite violence, Abuse people, Cause fear, Slander, defamation and much more... Can I ask why you think that you are within your right to do these things and why your rights supersede the victims rights to not have these things happen to them?
If I was passing by a school on the street and I started screaming really threatening stuff to the children on the other side of the gate, should I be arrested?
I understand I am peppering you with questions, I am just seeing how far your absolutism goes.
I’m sure you could come up with some terrible stuff and wouldn’t miss a wink of sleep. But it’s your word against mine, and I don’t think you’d be that convincing. — NOS4A2
So, you're simply unable to imagine any sort of reality or situation where all of a sudden you're not in the position you have become accustomed to? Not even a little bit? No empathy or ability to sympathize with other people who aren't like yourself? Mate... that's not just illogical. It's inhuman.
Where do you get that from what I wrote? Odd. — NOS4A2
Free speech absolutism is a common tactic to shift goalposts and slowly adjust people to follow something that they wouldn't outright do. It's a commonly used tactic within neonazi groups for example. — Christoffer
This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF. — AmadeusD
I was hoping this would not be necessary: It is hard for me to see how you're not trolling.
The question is obviously and clearly about speech. So, can you have another go and see what kind of speech I might be talking about?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.