There is no censorship in the US. In the UK there are circumstances under which censorship is legal. In the US, you can publish all you want, but you may face material penalties for doing so. That is, in the US the question as to censorship is almost completely irrelevant.In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech? — Purple Pond
So basically you are saying that I need to be a Muslim dedicated student of Islamic teachings to really understand what the texts might mean.The system is a complex one that scholars spend their lives trying to understand. Its not something you're going to get clear answers from by just brushing over someones Top 10 cherry picked quotes from islam. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
There should be no right of recovery and no right for me to stop this behavior? — Hanover
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? — Baden
Abusive speech can cause heart attacks. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
And let's not forget the effects of bullying. https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/effects/index.htmlThere are loads of examples of how speech can be intimidating. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
and I think its common knowledge that high stress environments can cause heart attacks in the elderly. You're welcome to search the material on that. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
actually looked into the subject could hold the position that words can never cause anyone any harm ever. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
We teach kids the basics of science in school. It does not infer from this that they are going to grow up and make atom bombs independently. Such conclusions are not reasonable. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
1k
Is there any text that you would find inapropriate for school?
— DiegoT
Kama sutra probably isn't appropriate. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
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
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. — Christoffer
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 — Harry Hindu
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. — Harry Hindu
A grown man, calling children the c word, the f word, the t word, etc etc, like the most foulest things you can think of, outside of the school through the fence on public property.
And the police not having the power to do anything. He is only using speech, and we either have free speech or we don't. Therefore we can't arrest him, and because he's on public property we can't do anything at all. We could ask him to move politely, but so long as he was only verbally abusive, he's protected by absolutest free speech laws and there is no crime being committed. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
We either have free speech, or we don't — Bitter Crank
thats a black and white fallacy right there buddy. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
Although I am sympathetic to the sentiment you put forward, I think it overlooks circumstances that would clearly need restricting when it comes to overtly aggressive speech that deems to threaten an individual. Such as the elderly, the disabled, children. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
[caption] Frank Collin, leader of the National Socialist Party of America, holds a rally in Marquette Park at 71st Street and Sacramento Avenue on Aug. 27, 1972, in Chicago. The Tribune reported Collin telling the crowd of 300, “The black revolution has taken over in all of the large cities in this country except Chicago and it’s up to the white, Aryan people of this city to keep white ethnic neighborhoods like this one together!” (Walter Kale / Chicago Tribune)
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. — DiegoT
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. — Terrapin Station
When you're officially prohibited from saying such things, then people tend to believe claims like that whether they're true or not. When we instead have a milieu where anyone is allowed to say whatever they like, then people don't believe things when all there is to them is a claim. — Terrapin Station
So, it's fine and dandy to psychologically torture vulnerable targets with threats and intimidation and that shouldn't be controlled. It's their own fault because they should just... what? Toughen up? You don't understand psychology and you don't understand humans. Typical of an ideological absolutist stuck in their favourite meme. — Baden
Do you have any evidence for this at all? You seem to be hanging quite a lot on this empirical claim without any support being advanced for it. — Isaac
It's really the second half of my post that's most important. I see you hand waving on the issue of potential harm through verbal means. Speech acts are nonetheless acts and acts (wrt legal responsibility) need to be assessed in terms of harm and intention to harm, no? — Baden
also, doesn't your previous argument rely on the idea of causality? for example: — Mr Phil O'Sophy
where is this evidence then? — Mr Phil O'Sophy
when your own response deflects from every single point I make, focuses on one particular part of the argument, and then make an absolutely absurd statement in response as what I can only assume is a deflection tactic. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
How are conditional statements not completely reliant upon causality? — Mr Phil O'Sophy
Dude you literally ignored everything that came before that which included the logical refutation of your statement. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
You're the one making the claim. If you want me to think it's not just bullshit, you need to present the evidence for it, at which point I'll examine the evidence . . .and tell you the problems with it, — Terrapin Station
speech can't be shown to be causal to any particular harm, because regardless of the speech in question, we could take two different people and expose them to the same speech and they'd react completely differently. — Terrapin Station
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.