• NOS4A2
    9.7k


    I never said anything about allowing murder.
  • AmadeusD
    3.1k
    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

    Could you perhaps point out, in the above, where I suggested, or intimated that this is what you wanted? Or that I was questioning it? You'll notice I don't.

    Again:

    I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said.AmadeusD
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    “Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose”. Is murder not the “out-going harm” you were speaking of, then? Then what, exactly, is the out-going harm?
  • BC
    13.8k
    Say what you will and accept the consequences. Or, tailor what you say to suit the sensibilities of people who do not accept the notion of absolute free speech.
  • Samlw
    60
    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

    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?

    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

    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.
  • Martijn
    15


    You raise solid points and don't worry, I didn't feel anything you wrote as a personal attack. Scrutiny is always welcome.

    You made me reconsider my stances somewhat, and for that I thank you. I think I know where my position is coming from. I envision an intrinsically good and empathetic society, where every single human is taught to care for both themselves and each other with the same amount of love, wisdom, and empathy. A world so fair that acting unjustly, even things like telling lies or slandering, is so preposterous, we don't even consider the possibility. Now, obviously, our world (right now) is the total opposite. I'd argue we already live in a free-for-all society, it just has the illusion of being nice and consistent.

    I live in a rich Western nation, and the standard of living here is quite high. However, even within my nation, millions of people live at the poverty level. I've experienced this all too well. If you are poor, you are discarded by the system and even your 'friends'. Capitalism is competition, and if you are poor or have a low-status job, or perhaps a poor reputation on top of that, you 'lose'. And if you lose, you may as well go die in a gutter. Is that justice? Where's the community?

    Hopefully, I haven't digressed too far. This is about free speech of course, I am simply exploring my own stances. I think the truth is that I have lost faith in most of my fellow humans (even if I don't consider them evil or corrupt, just misguided) and that's where most of this comes from. And I distrust the system the most, having witnessed the soulless evil of a government entity first-hand.



    See, I don't think that is absurd. You are correct that in our world, and especially the USA, most people would do exactly that. As Donald Trump famously stated: "I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."

    Most people right now still have a strong desire to follow and to conform. This is why things like norms, traditions, and laws are so effective. The average person fears repercussions much more so than they have the desire and courage to be different and authentic. This is obvious, as we couldn't have a society at this scale if every single person was free and there was no such thing as the rule of law.

    I simply envision a different world, one where everyone lives with the core virtues (wisdom, courage, justice, temperance, stillness, and piety) and from that, we would create such a meaningful, beautiful, and joyful world that it goes beyond our realm of comprehension, since our dystopia right now is simply the complete opposite. At least I still have my cat.
  • Malcolm Parry
    156
    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

    I think there is a fundamental difference between an assault and broadcasting ideas (even very unpalatable ideas)
  • Christoffer
    2.4k


    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.

    You draw the line at free speech, you are for free speech, but those people on the other side are against free speech, so we need to oppose them and be against them and... limit their use of speech.

    The ones proclaiming to be free speech absolutists are actually the ones who want to limit free speech. They're acting from the perspective of allowing THEIR speech, not free speech.

    And because of this, free speech runs into the tolerance paradox. That if we tolerate everything, then we will tolerate the intolerable, and thus invite in the thing that will limit tolerance and free speech.

    It is obvious that in order for anyone to benefit free speech it needs limitations in order to guardrail it from being corrupted by the corrupt.

    Basically, using a Kantian perspective, to universalize the concept. If what you say communicates the will to restrict other's rights to speech, then it's not universal and should be restricted. If you say that a certain group in society doesn't have the same rights as you, then you are essentially advocating for restrictions of their right, including free speech. 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? Because if they are the ones who've started out saying other's rights should be restricted, then you are in the right to restrict them since that's able to be universalized. It is universal to restrict those who want to restrict others as that will remove the intolerance. But restricting people based solely on which group they belong to is not universal as that could just as easily be turned around against yourself.
  • Samlw
    60
    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

    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
    60
    I think there is a fundamental difference between an assault and broadcasting ideas (even very unpalatable ideas)Malcolm Parry

    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
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k
    You have to assume that some people are going to be gullible and stupid,Samlw
    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.

    the UK experienced numerous violent riots targeted towards minority communities due to large-scale disinformation being purposefully spread,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.
  • Christoffer
    2.4k
    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

    Yes, but I don't think you're taking what I said to the logical conclusion. Any form of incitement that negates the rights of someone else without a reason that is able to be universalized, falls under the need for consequences that restrict that person's freedom of speech.

    If someone calls out for violence onto someone else without a reason that is able to be universalized, then that person should be shut up and feel the consequences. If someone says that we should kill a person because of the socioeconomic background they come from, that is intolerant. If someone says we should kill the person who called out for that killing, that is calling out for a defense of others and can be universalized. Disregarding the morality of killing in this example, one act is more morally justified than the other as one is calling out for killing in the name of intolerance and personal preferences of who gets human rights, and the other is a call to protect tolerance and other people.

    A court of law does not operate on universal laws, it's why we have philosophy and moral philosophy in the first place; to research and study morality for the purpose of producing laws that improve society. We cannot use the courts of law as the source, but find the logic in moral behavior to be the fundamentals of how we conclude things like this and then form laws based on it.
  • Samlw
    60
    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

    You aren't from the UK so I will try and paint the picture. You had members of parliament such as Nigel Farage, prominent far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson and very popular voices such as Andrew Tate saying that the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It spread like wildfire across all social media platforms in the UK. He wasn't an illegal immigrant, the reason his personal information was not released to the public was because he was under 18, but because of this disinformation spreading across all anti-immigration circles, far-right protests were arranged in every city across the country lasting 2-3 weeks. These "protests" which were actually riots were violent, they caused major property damage as they set cars on fire and threw bricks at mosques and set a divide that we still experience today. When his information did get released he was a second generation legal immigrant born in Wales into a Christian family.

    Let me say that again, CHRISTIAN... He wasn't even Muslim so all the hatred, violence and destruction against our Muslim communities can be entirely blamed on the disinformation that was spread. People in the UK have been arrested for their role in inciting violence which in turn, stopped the riots.
  • Samlw
    60


    I understand what you mean, If it shouldn't be up to a court of law and a Jury of peers who should it be up to?
  • Malcolm Parry
    156
    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

    I see. It is interesting. I don't think any words that could be uttered would upset me in any way unless there was an imminent threat of violence and then it wouldn't be the words, it would be the violence that was the alarming thing.
    Any slander wouldn't bother me if there were no consequences but the fact that there could be consequences would mean there should be redress for any damage done. I'm an advocate for not suppressing thoughts but some untruthful words do have direct impact on the recipient and cannot be allowed to be said unchallenged. IMHO.
  • Christoffer
    2.4k
    If it shouldn't be up to a court of law and a Jury of peers who should it be up to?Samlw

    The court of law, any laws does not come from nowhere. They are formed by people thinking about morality. It's moral philosophy that defines how we guard society from itself and informs what laws we have and how courts should decide.

    What I mean is that if you ask the philosophical questions around free speech and where we restrict it in order to protect itself, society and democracy, then we need parameters that operate on moral logic, rather than on any court of law. The conclusions of this moral logic... is what should define how courts of law operate.

    What we see in society is people uprooting the moral definitions on the subject of free speech, transforming them into methods to radicalize people into corrupted interpretations of it. Rather than universalizing the concept to something that has a solid foundation for actual laws.

    Free speech is mostly protected in constitutions in many nations, but many constitutions have bad and unclear paragraphs on how to protect free speech itself from self-corruption through the intolerance paradox.

    In the most primitive form of the law, it should be illegal to argue for restrictions of free speech when the reasons for it is not for the purpose of protecting everyone's right to free speech. When someone is acting out hate speech, they're also calling out for restrictions on free speech for the groups they act that hate speech against.

    Basically, if I criticize Islam as a religion I could argue that many islamic states are fascistic in their control of information and limits of free speech and that there are individuals who call out for limits to free speech because of these arbitrary religious reasons and hate of certain topics and people. This is not hate speech, but a criticism of a systemic problem that limits human rights. If I instead were to criticize muslims as a human group and argue that we should not let them say any religious things, regardless of message, because islamic nations also talk about limits to free speech and that they shouldn't be allowed to spread anything they say because of this genetic fallacy I'm making, then I'm actually arguing through similar hate speech patterns for a restriction of free speech not out of criticism of systemic problems that are legitime reasons, but from racism.

    -The problem is that society seem unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios, and it can cause problems for how free speech is being used in hateful rhetoric, moving goal posts by extremists, and even influence how courts interpret laws.
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    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.

    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.

    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 don’t think so, no.

    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.

    It’s magical thinking. You can’t cause me harm or make me do things with your words. To believe that is to believe in sorcery.

    We can run a simple test. You can try it on me. I will be your willing participant. Make me commit violence with your words, or make me fearful. Abuse me, or whatever. According to you your words should be able to cause me to do things, maybe feel pain. Let’s try it and see if that is true.
  • Outlander
    2.3k
    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.
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    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.



    You don’t want to test your magical theory?
  • Samlw
    60
    I think you are unable to say that you are incorrect or even give an inch even after we point out your stupidity.
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    How am I incorrect? It’s quite easy to prove me wrong: make me feel fear with your words. Incite me to violence. You won’t because you know you cannot do any such thing, despite claiming the opposite.
  • Samlw
    60
    Is it hard to believe that you may not represent the entirety of the population?
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    I don’t represent anyone. No illusions here.
  • Outlander
    2.3k
    Where do you get that from what I wrote? Odd.NOS4A2

    Eh, perhaps that was a bit of a reach on my part. But nonetheless, simply because "[one's] word against [yours]" happens to stand and seems to be of utmost permanence, or at least, prominence, is unique to your specific situation. What if your word (reputation) is no longer of such standing, does that change anything as far as the nature of truth and accuracy of either you or the other party's claim? It shouldn't. Yet, it does. That's the point I believed you to have overlooked.

    Basically saying "well it's my word against yours and I don't think people would believe you", even if true in most situations, isn't really grounds for any sort of factual basis now is it (Edit: At least, not in and of itself)? :chin:
  • AmadeusD
    3.1k
    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?
  • AmadeusD
    3.1k
    Fair enough - thanks for the comments. I think hoping for Utopia is absurd on it's face unfortunately.

    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.
  • Christoffer
    2.4k
    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

    Is it well poisoning to mention how “free speech absolutism” is used by extremist groups as a rhetorical tactic? How it is actually a very common tactic by people to justify their hate speech? And often later using the rage-bait from the reaction of that rhetoric to gather people behind them as champions of free speech against those criticizing their hate speech. Radicalizing incrementally. How much do you know about extremist radicalization psychology?

    How do you avoid the tolerance paradox when these groups use the “absolute” to change a society from a tolerate to an intolerant one?

    If you can’t answer that, don’t lecture anyone on what is a “bad” discussion.
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    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?

    I’ve already argued that speech cannot cause harm. So maybe you can tell me what harms you’re speaking about.
  • Janus
    17.1k
    I never said anything about allowing murder.NOS4A2

    What about inciting people to murder then? Or even inciting them to persecute others? To anticipate a likely objection: you might argue that people make up their own minds what to do, in which case you would be hopelessly naive.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.