I don't see how a speech act is any different to any other act, some are what a society thinks are good, some bad, and some so bad they need prohibition. I can't say as I've ever really 'got' free-speech as a principle in its own right. I don't get the value, to liberals, of also allowing racists and fascists a free platform. I've heard the argument that these speakers are only more powerful when pushed underground and the best way to diminish them is free open rational debate, but if that were the case then why would they want to speak at all, knowing what was going to happen. Are we suggesting that somehow all racists also don't understand the true effect of public debate, that would be a bit of an odd coincidence.

Basically, if some hate group wants to promote their message it is at least likely that this is because they think it will have some effect which furthers their agenda. Since most people in society don't want their agenda furthered, it's seems reasonable to prevent the action likely to cause it to be.

Of course governments can abuse this power. But if you live in a country which is suppressing basic human rights and you're trying to rouse some kind of rebellion to overthrow them, their ability to prevent you from printing a pamphlet is probably the least of your problems. Of all the laws and government suppression you intend to overcome in the course of your revolution, contacting and enthusing others is the easiest hurdle.

I find this issue (freedom of speech) a childish matter.

A philosopher, like you, would recognize sound logic and see truth from falsity. You're, well, trained to do so. I'm not saying all philosophers are perfect in this regard but if there's a class of people who can be trusted to be rational, it's philosophers. At least in theory.

The rest, non-philosophers, don't know the difference between a good argument and bad one. We're beset by our biases and are perfect targets for the manipulative and toxic who, in all probability, are themselves victims of their own biases. We're like children, naive may be, but also wrong and this combination leads to toxic behavior.

I heard somewhere, teach/learn how to think, rather than what to think.

If all of us were taught critical thinking and we were competent therein then we would recognize a bad argument and disbelieve what it entails. We wouldn't be moved by Nazis, or other harmful ideology.

The positive aspect would be we would formulate good arguments to make our case and, that way, hit the bullseye of truth or thereabouts.

What I'm saying is, if we were all critical thinkers (paradoxically we don't do justice to the ''sapiens'' in the name of our species, homo sapiens) there would be no need to discuss the pros and cons of free speech. The good reasoners would see through the veil of lies and bad logic and no one would be there to put forth bad arguments and evil ideology.

One could say that we, as a group, haven't attained the status of critical thinkers as yet. So, provisionally, to err on the side of caution, censorship is necessary.

Where we're failing is teaching people to be rational so they have the tools to separate truth from lies.

We need censorship (as of now), yes, but we need to become rational more. Once all become rational, censorship would automatically become redundant.

With censorship we're treating people as children and rightly so since they lack the thinking tools to defend themselves from bad logic.

However, on the same coin, if fascist, Nazi, racist, and other hateful speech are censored, their toxic can be contained. — Purple Pond

Absolutely, and that is why James Watson was stripped of his titles and had his Twitter account restricted, because he is those things.

Basically, if some hate group wants to promote their message it is at least likely that this is because they think it will have some effect which furthers their agenda. Since most people in society don't want their agenda furthered, it's seems reasonable to prevent the action likely to cause it to be. — Isaac

And one of those hate-groups is called the "family" apparently, triggering a meltdown at Google.

One could say that we, as a group, haven't attained the status of critical thinkers as yet. So, provisionally, to err on the side of caution, censorship is necessary. — TheMadFool

The thing is that we, as a group, will never attain the status of being "critical thinkers", achieve a discourse where people are so informed, knowledged and critical that they can spot what is true and what is false, what is acceptable and what isn't. That is a fact.

And there are many reasons for this, not only because some people aren't thinkers.

Absolutely, and that is why James Watson was stripped of his titles and had his Twitter account restricted, because he is those things — Inis

Well according to Vox, James Watson has a whole history of making sexist and racist comments.

I heard somewhere, teach/learn how to think, rather than what to think. — TheMadFool

that´s Athena, who´s having this as her January personal cause... It should not be a cause, but something we take for granted, but here we are, back in the dark Modern Age!

In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech?

In the private domain, do you agree that what can be said is the owner's pejorative? — Purple Pond

with pejorative you mean prerogative? Let´s make this question less abstract and more real. Are you in favour of banning Quran and hadiths, or at least their use in public libraries and schools, and also public apologies of these texts? Quran has hundreds of verses calling to violence and hate towards non believers; it says explicitly that God is okay with slavery, and with disciplining women that refuse to obey. It contains twice as many verses against Jews as the Mein Kampff. Hadiths, as they are more specific, are also much more explicit in their promotion of all kind of violence.
What would you do with these texts?
My personal answer is that no book must be banned, not even the Mein Kampff or Mao Red Book or Madonna´s five books for children. But all books, sacred or not for some people, must be open to any kind of criticism and mockery; and they are not to be taught in schools or in kid libraries if they incite to violence or defend theories about the social and physical world that are discredited by Science.

with pejorative you mean prerogative? — DiegoT

:gasp: Yes.

Are you in favour of banning Quran and hadiths, or at least their use in public libraries and schools, and also public apologies of these texts? Quran has hundreds of verses calling to violence and hate towards non believers; it says explicitly that God is okay with slavery, and with disciplining women that refuse to obey. It contains twice as many verses against Jews as the Mein Kampff. — DiegoT

No because I don't think Qurans are generally harmful. You say the Quran incites violence, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I think banning religious books will do more harm than good.

Freedom of speech is important in that censorship can be abused by powerful institutions as a tool to disenfranchise certain people, making them less influential. If liberals and their ideas such as freedom, democracy, human rights are censored, their messages will not reach everyone. However, on the same coin, if fascist, Nazi, racist, and other hateful speech are censored, their toxic can be contained. — Purple Pond

Nazism came to power because of limited free speech not because of free speech. When your party controls the airwaves, controls the conversation, and what is allowed to be talked about, you become the very thing you claim you want to prevent.

Some speech harms society, some speech hurts society, most speech does neither. The question is who should stem the flood of harmful speech? Well, it depends on the domain. In the public domain, the government can do something about harmful speech. But here's the key question, can we trust them? Governments have been known not to act in the interest of the people. As for the private domain (such as here in the philosophy forum), it's really the owners pejorative prerogative. Your house, your rules. For example, I see nothing wrong with YouTube banning Alex Jones form their website.

So it comes down to two questions:

In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech?

In the private domain, do you agree that what can be said is the owner's pejorative prerogative? — Purple Pond

The question is, What do you mean by "harmful"? Nazi Germany had a robust economy before Hitler started WW2. The society wasn't harmed by fascism. Jews were, and any other group that wasn't pure German.

Declaring speech "harmful" is a way if limiting speech that you don't agree with. You have to explain why it is harmful. You have to use your own words to combat hate (illogical) speech. It is illogical because to ask to treat anyone different than yourself - to declare yourself as having special rights that others don't have - is hypocritical and therefore illogical. It is quite easy to counter hate speech with logic. All that is necessary is that the hate speech can't limit other's freedom to speak and counter other speech.

The answer isn't to limit free speech. The answer is MORE free speech. Allow everyone a say. Use your own words to argue against illogical speech. Let everyone listen to what is said. Let them hear hate speech AND the counter to it. Let people the freedom to not only speak, but to listen to every and any idea and the counter to those ideas. That is how we will evolve, or progress, in our thinking as a society.

No because I don't think Qurans are generally harmful. You say the Quran incites violence, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I think banning religious books will do more harm than good. — Purple Pond

The Quran is pretty successful at inciting violence. Where shall we begin, the greatest genocide in human history, or perhaps a more recent genocide? Or shall we stick to terrorism?

This topic is a hot potato that should be a healthy meal of discussion since it's one of the most important topics of our current times.

I think that whenever a government bans someone's speech it should be on solid grounds of hate-speech. By hate-speech I mean talks in public about harming others, proposing limitations of other people's freedom on non-solid grounds for such limitations (meaning, limitations based on ethnicity, gender etc.). It should actually be somewhat obvious when this is happening and when someone is having a speech with reasonable arguments that can be held in a discussion. If someone blatantly say that "those people" should be limited in their freedom as people and there is no reason for it other than things like gender or ethnicity, it's pretty obvious its hate speech. This also applies to when extreme left voices speak about white men without anything other than that they are white men as their argument.

If anyone is unclear on what harmful speech is, it should be obvious that when anyone criticizes a group of people without any other reason than that they are different in ethnicity, gender or culture, it is hate speech. Any criticism against a group of people should be based on solid reasonable arguments that can't be disputed easily.

Let's say a "terrorist group" is being blamed, criticized and disliked by a society. What is the reason? Is it because these people are fighting for rights by having debates and discussions? That they protest by not eating? That they sit outside government buildings and speak out about their situations? If that is the case they are not terrorists and society is blaming this group based on nothing more than hate of this group, therefore hateful and harmful speech about this group is being held by the public and should not be accepted. If they are fighting against society because society is attacking them. If society kills civilians in this group and they are fighting back while the government brands them as terrorists because of this, then, even so, does not equal branding them as terrorists since they act like rebels fighting for their right to live and exist. Then the discussion should reflect this truth of the situations rather than using hate-speech to brand them as lower than society. This form is a way for governments to reduce these groups to a level where society can hate them and therefore win over the public by sheer manipulation. If this group, however, inflict damage and harm by a doctrine of violence, killing and torturing not out of the need to survive as a group, not out of a need to be able to live in peace, but by invading and killing based on religious texts, domination ideas etc. then they are terrorists and should be condemned by society. The form of these groups should inform how we speak about them and inform if our speech is hate-speech and harmful or truthful to the group's nature.

There are situations when things get muddied, but in most cases, it's blatantly easy to spot what is hate-speech and what is not. Not being able to do so means having an inability to deduce reality outside of staining it with personal values not applicable to society as a whole.

So, governments should make laws about hate-speech out of this parameter. Going further than this will infringe on freedom of speech and loosening it will invite a pandemic of racism and hate. As an example, the racism of Trump has made it easier for racist groups to speak publically with their racism. This, in turn, has led to an increase in violence towards minority groups since racism isn't as frowned upon as before. The balance should be obvious on a government level.

However, what is considered ok and not in society should be informed by the people themselves. It's how we move forward as a society. We aren't using certain words anymore since they are considered derogatory against certain groups. This isn't applied by laws and governments, but by culture and the people in order to minimize harm and include everyone into society. Where the line is drawn is set by public discussions.

As an example of something that I believe will be considered unwanted in public speaking because of its regular use in derogatory talk about a group is "CIS men". Its use today is not to describe a regular male whose identity is male in society, which is a fine description to use when talking about genders, but it has instead turned into a derogatory use as a way of turning the tables of hate. Its use is not really used in the way it's intended, or in the way it's supposed to be used, but rather has turned into a popular derogatory word about white men. This word is still accepted today but may become a word that is considered derogatory and harmful to the group of white men and banned for keeping any rational discourse about gender, free of derogatory hate-speech.

Neither of this is censorship. It's not censoring anything since all it does is steering discussions into being rational to the core of the subject matter and not stained with irrational hate between groups or individuals. It should be obvious when limitations of free speech are harmful and become the starting point for totalitarian societies and when there are too few limitations and throws society into a chaos of crime, racism, and hate between groups of people. The result of not enough limitations are pretty obvious, but too many only use totalitarian states as their measurement for free speech, which is a rather limited and narrow point of view.

Nazism came to power because of limited free speech not because of free speech. — Harry Hindu

I don't even agree with dropping free speech but why would you say something so clearly false as a means to support free speech? Nazis came to power using street violence, inciting fear and unrest, and taking advantage of a more fragile state of the public mind after the first War and a terrible economy. Not because muh free speech was limited.

The question is, What do you mean by "harmful"? Nazi Germany had a robust economy before Hitler started WW2. The society wasn't harmed by fascism. Jews were, and any other group that wasn't pure German. — Harry Hindu

And Jews aren't part of the society? Further, how is the Nazi destruction of civil liberties and personal property not harmful? Like come on, everything you're saying is making hyper-idealized scenarios the reason why one ought to maintain free speech

My view is that truth should have a very different status from that of falsehood. To censor truth is outrageous and to speak truth should never be a crime or a tort, except where there is a specific undertaking of confidentiality given, and/or demanded with good justification of public or private interest.

Falsehood, is another matter entirely. Honest error seems innocent unless reckless, but deliberate falsehood and deception by misleading, should attract consequences commensurate with the damage they do.

Nazism came to power because of limited free speech not because of free speech. When your party controls the airwaves, controls the conversation, and what is allowed to be talked about, you become the very thing you claim you want to prevent. — Harry Hindu

Indeed! And the first victims are those related to humour and parody, because no totalitarian regime can prosper if people can see it through the lense of humour. Cartoons, comic strips, stand-ups and casual jokes are the first communications to be censored when a totalitarian movement wants to impose itself on society. The effect of censorship, what is really about, is too things: to impede the process of rational processing of propaganda at the individual and social level; and to impose a single meaning to words, symbols and actions among the infinite possible meanings that people can assign to them. For example, to ban the swastika in Germany served to the purpose of keeping this universal symbol of life and renewal, attached to his former Nazi use. When feminists ban beauty contests, they impose the meaning of celebrating female beauty and youth as something inherently degrading, banning all other possible meanings.

The thing is that we, as a group, will never attain the status of being "critical thinkers", achieve a discourse where people are so informed, knowledged and critical that they can spot what is true and what is false, what is acceptable and what isn't. That is a fact.

And there are many reasons for this, not only because some people aren't thinkers. — ssu

Yes, I realized later I was being too optimistic. Anyway, let's cross our fingers in a philosophical way and hope for the best.

that´s Athena, who´s having this as her January personal cause... It should not be a cause, but something we take for granted, but here we are, back in the dark Modern Age! — DiegoT

:ok: :up:

And Jews aren't part of the society? Further, how is the Nazi destruction of civil liberties and personal property not harmful? Like come on, everything you're saying is making hyper-idealized scenarios the reason why one ought to maintain free speech — MindForged

I advocate freedom of speech, but I don´t think we can save the Nazi regime at all. True, they gave us the technology and scientists to reach the Moon; the first laws to protect the environment (Ecology is a word coined by a Nazi), Goebbels taught us how to win elections, and they also invented sex dolls. However, I think we can accept the good things without taking the whole pack, that was hell on Earth. Fourteen million people died in the death camps, with the help of IBM by the way; six of them Jews, but in reality you had there all kind of people: prisoners of war, dissidents, homosexuals, disabled people, Gipsies, Catholics, all kind of people: most of them citizens of Germany. Only Muslims were spared, because the Arab world was allied with Hitler and many Muslims volunteered to serve in the German SS.
Precisely because the Nazi regime was nightmarish, I don´t want censorship. If people can´t handle "dangerous messages", let´s give them the skills and means to criticize them, and let´s let them do it publicly.

(Ecology is a word coined by a Nazi) — DiegoT

Like Dasein, and other vocabulary introduced by everyone's favorite Nazi. Another of those good things Nazis did.

I don't even agree with dropping free speech but why would you say something so clearly false as a means to support free speech? Nazis came to power using street violence, inciting fear and unrest, and taking advantage of a more fragile state of the public mind after the first War and a terrible economy. Not because muh free speech was limited. — MindForged

Go back and read what I wrote. I never claimed that Nazis came to power ONLY by limiting free speech. They used violence against anyone who spoke negatively about the party. THAT is limiting free speech. My response was to the narrow scope of the OP where limiting hate speech - like fascism - actually works against the freedom of speech. Many political parties have used violence, incite unrest and take advantage of people's fears, not just Nazis. Many political parties want to restrict personal freedoms, not just Nazis. Many politicians refer to their opponents as hostiles, which is inciting violence and unrest here in the US.

The OP was asking whether or not limiting free speech was permissible in certain circumstances. I was saying it isn't permissible in any circumstance. Let all ideas be expressed, and then let those ideas be open for criticism and falsification. My point was that it wasn't by allowing free speech that Nazis came to power. It was by limiting it, but not just limiting free speech - but that would be beyond the scope of this thread - get it?

And Jews aren't part of the society? Further, how is the Nazi destruction of civil liberties and personal property not harmful? Like come on, everything you're saying is making hyper-idealized scenarios the reason why one ought to maintain free speech — MindForged

Again, go back and read the post. That isn't what I was saying. I said the best way to combat Nazism is by letting them express their ideas and then expose their ideas to criticism. Not only that, but it's always nice to be able to know what your neighbors think and where they stand.

I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. I also think it's missing the point to see freedom of speech as only a legal issue. Freedom of speech is a control issue. Whether it's control via the government/laws or simply social pressure doesn't matter. Control is control.

The whole gist of freedom of speech, by the way, is that it protects the ability to say things that upset people, that are controversial, that make people uncomfortable--sometimes extremely so. The idea of freedom of speech would never have arisen otherwise.

It's sad--and more than a bit frightening--that so many people are okay with speech restrictions, that they're okay with ostracizing others, basically banishing/exiling them--and often taking away their livelihood, etc., just because they dare to express something that's not in line with the current status quo.

In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech? — Purple Pond

No. The law is well developed in the area of slander and defamation related to private causes of action against private harm. As to whether the government would have the right to stop offensive speech generally (like advocating Nazism), in the US they don't. It's protected free speech.

In the private domain, do you agree that what can be said is the owner's pejorative prerogative? — Purple Pond

Yes. Considering I have the right to even deny you entry into my home, it'd be a strange rule requiring me to let you stay there after you insult my family under a "once you're there, you're there" rule.

I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. — Terrapin Station

So let's say you run a restaurant in town and I'm your competitor, so I send out mailings and publish advertisements saying that you serve dog meat, you molest children, and you use all your profits to fund terrorists groups. You go bankrupt, your kids get thrown out all their sports programs, you can't find any other job, and you and your family are shunned.

There should be no right of recovery and no right for me to stop this behavior?

I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. — Terrapin Station

Just to add to @Hanover's examples, what about a sustained written and verbal campaign of intimidation aimed at psychologically torturing a vulnerable target? Fine and dandy? Or should it be recognized for what it is, i.e. a purposeful attempt to do harm, and treated as such?

which genocide are you referring to? Are you by any chance doing a Molyneux and adding up the estimated deaths that occurred in India over a millennia and counting them as one genocide? Or is there a different one you're thinking of? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Millennia? 400 million doesn't matter to you because they are Indian?

Don't mention the Yazidi either.

With regards to terrorism, what does a western dogmatic christian, or angry atheist, have to do if they want to kill loads of muslims? Do they necessarily have to just go outside and hunt them down? Or can they just join the army, get paid for it, get told they're a hero and earn a pension and a badge? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Christians are being genocided in the Middle East by Muslims. No one cares about the Christians.

Ok and whats your source? how were those numbers estimated and by whom?
Who said Indians didn't matter. My issue is with a bogus claim. I'm not saying muslims haven't caused atrocities in the past, just that the one you're mentioning has weak foundations in terms of the sources. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Just Google it.

Don't be silly of course people care about the christians. How were there christians there in the first place if Islam is just by default murdering them? If what you say is true, there would never have been the opportunity for so many christians to establish themselves in the Middle East in order for these atrocities to occur. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Christianity is 600 years older than Islam.

same argument could be made as was done with the christians. If the islamic position is by default to murder them, how were they able to establish such high numbers in the region in the first place? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

They may pay the jizya.

Like Dasein, and other vocabulary introduced by everyone's favorite Nazi. Another of those good things Nazis did. — Ciceronianus the White

It is very important to recognize good things in your enemies. You must not reduce your adversaries to stereotypes, or reject things because they came to you from the wrong hands. Republicans reject climate change measures because Dems talk about it all the time; Democrats reject the defense of the national borders because Trump wants to improve them. This is irrational thinking. The most evil person or movement can do good things and say the truth sometimes, as much as saints and heroes have their share of mistakes.

No because I don't think Qurans are generally harmful. You say the Quran incites violence, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I think banning religious books will do more harm than good. — Purple Pond

Have you read the quran and hadiths? because if you haven´t, your belief is just a belief. The vast majority of Nazis never participated in any crime. Many of them did not even live in Germany, such as Henry Ford. Even today, most neonazis are law-abiding citizens. Do we conclude the Nazi ideology is not so harmful after all?

this behaviour has never been part of freedom of speech. When you use the language for real crimes, like publishing black lists with addresses to facilitate attacks; or directing death threats; or, as in the example, to slander, that´s not freedom of expression, but common well-known crimes that have a textual element.

If the intimidation involves threats, revealing personal information, slandering, or making impossible for you to communicate (like hacking attacks to your website) this is punishable by law. It´s not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech concerns mainly the Informational, Expressive and
Aesthetic, functions of language; but not the phatic function when it is related to the comitting of crimes.