If you were to ask me if moral stances have anything to do with what's "proper," I'd say "No."

If you were to ask me if moral stances have anything to do with what's "proper," I'd say "No." — Terrapin Station

But that's not what I asked. Are you now going to start posing random questions to yourself and answering them?

If you asked me what kind of shirt I was wearing, I'd say red.

In the U.S., we have this Establishment of Religion thing. In regards to speech, it allows groups to say stuff to themselves that is theoretically only limited by whether it stops other groups saying stuff to themselves. The way I think of it is as an exchange where I can say what I please to my kid because I will let you do the same to your kid.

Anyway, this agreement leads to a language that is formed outside of that deal. This secular space is a result but an undetermined one. It is a measure of law but more one of custom. If we cannot hammer out a way not to incite each other in our immediate dealings with each other, then the original deal is off.

Now there have been many times in our history where that cancellation happened, especially in small communities where the private is stronger than the public ethos. The arbiter of what is permitted can serve either master. I support the public ethos but I don't think I can wave a wand and assure it will win all that confronts it.

I hope that doesn't help.

But that's not what I asked — Hanover

I wasn't aiming to retype/rephrase what you asked. I was commenting on the notion of "proper" and whether I was saying anything about it. Weird that that might be difficult to figure out.

If you can't offer a reasonable response to the question of why your position allows enforcement of contractual speech acts, despite your claim that no speech can be regulated, then just say so. To divert on this path about the definition of "proper" isn't interesting or clever, but just obviously evasive, and possibly (although I can't perfectly read your intent) trollish.

If you can't offer a reasonable response to the question of why your position allows enforcement of contractual speech acts, despite your claim that no speech can be regulated, then just say so. — Hanover

I already answered this. Re contracts, it's not any sort of speech restriction. It's not stopping anyone from saying anything they want to say. It's just that I'd enforce contracts--if you promise A in exchange for B and do not deliver, there would be legal repercussions.

I couldn't care less if you think that's reasonable or not. There's no reason for me to care what your assessments would be of my stances, especially given how you've behaved towards me so far.

I already answered this. Re contracts, it's not any sort of speech restriction. It's not stopping anyone from saying anything they want to say. It's just that I'd enforce contracts--if you promise A in exchange for B and do not deliver, there would be legal repercussions. — Terrapin Station

No law literally and physically stops speech, but all speech regulation, whether it be anti-defamation law or contractual law, imposes legal repercussions when violated. You've not presented a meaningful distinction between the two.

The prohibition isn't against speech. It's against promising something and not delivering it. Not sure why that wouldn't be a clear distinction to you, but you can say it isn't. It's not as if I can force people to (say they) understand things they (say they) don't understand.

I don't believe any form of speech should be censored, no matter how idiotic, ignorant, hateful or violent. One is either are a proponent of free speech or of censorship and I choose the former. Let the revolutionaries preach the revolution. Let the KKK preach their racism. Let conspiracy theorists talk about how the government is brainwashing you. I don't see why that should bother me, unless they commit violent actions. At that point the authorities should swoop in and enforce the law.

We've had a ton of evidence of it lately with all of the sexual assault/rape claims that have no evidence other than a claim, but where accusers are believed by virtue of making an accusation, and where people have commented that if the claims weren't true, the accusers would be in hot water themselves legally. — Terrapin Station

That shows that people believe certain types of claims. What I asked is if you had any evidence for the claim below.

"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."

Paraphrasing - When free-speech is restricted then people believe claims. When free-speech is unrestricted then people no longer just believe claims.

Evidence for this assertion would require at least some controlled studies. Otherwise you're just guessing.

Just to point out, this is ending up discriminating against people for speaking at all about differences in ethnicity, gender, or culture. There is no clear line what constitutes criticism and what not. — ernestm

No, it's not. You are taking one part of my text out of context and doesn't read into the nuances of the entirety of it. This is usually the way these discussions go; the nuances get thrown out the window to make a point instead of actually understanding the argument someone said before answering.

No, it's not. You are taking one part of my text out of context and doesn't read into the nuances of the entirety of it. This is usually the way these discussions go; the nuances get thrown out the window to make a point instead of actually understanding the argument someone said before answering. — Christoffer

What I added was that compliments constitute reverse criticism, which is the actual source of the problem 's perpetuation. It is actually impossible to stop discrimination for that reason.

The prohibition isn't against speech. It's against promising something and not delivering it. — Terrapin Station

Promising something isn't speech? What is it, a rabbit?

I don't believe any form of speech should be censored, no matter how idiotic, ignorant, hateful or violent. One is either are a proponent of free speech or of censorship and I choose the former. Let the revolutionaries preach the revolution. Let the KKK preach their racism. Let conspiracy theorists talk about how the government is brainwashing you. I don't see why that should bother me, unless they commit violent actions. At that point the authorities should swoop in and enforce the law. — Tzeentch

Counterexamples to consider: Defamatory speech aimed at a particular person, as in me destroying your reputation and causing you to lose your job based entirely upon lies, me refusing to honor an oral contract with you, or me causing imminent danger to the public by yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The examples you provided were all of the same sort. They were generalized ideological statements, and they are generally allowed in Western democracies, regardless of their offensiveness. An exception to that would be Germany's limitation on advocacy of Nazism, but that is understandable, considering their particular history.

Honestly, let people say what they want about each other. Even if it is meant to ruin their reputation and based on lies. Perhaps if that becomes standard practice, people will eventually stop believing everything they hear (which is an epidemic in my society). It is no different from high school gossip, but with higher stakes.

Refusing to honor an oral contract isn't quite a matter of free speech, though? That's a legal matter. Oral contracts can be legally binding, as far as I am aware.

The example of the theater is an interesting one. Should someone be fined for yelling 'fire' in a theater even if it doesn't cause panic? Again, I think such a person should be punished for the physical consequences of his actions and not for the utterance of a word. For example, if in the panic people get hurt, clearly the person who yelled should be punished, but not because he uttered a word, but because of disturbing the peace, or causing bodily harm, etc.

And let the neo-nazis demonstrate, even in Germany. Suppressing their opinions won't change them, and letting them demonstrate gives them a (semi-)harmless way of venting their anger, which I think is actually an important thing.

Defamatory speech aimed at a particular person, as in me destroying your reputation and causing you to lose your job... — Hanover

Is not @metoo at least sometimes exactly this? Suppose a former employee (10 years ago) makes this accusation: "Hanover required oral sex from me before he would give me a recommendation, and then he told a prospective employer that I give great head." (Well... she did get a good recommendation, after all. Ungrateful woman!)

The lady posts this on twitter, and a day later your boss fires you. "We can't tolerate your appalling and disgusting sexist behavior and your presence here damages our company. Get lost, creep."

You say the lady is a liar and you never did any such thing, and never would, but you are still disgraced and out of a job. So, two people are at fault here: The lying lady whose false tweet cost you your job and reputation, and your employer who fired you on the basis of a completely unsubstantiated claim which was a lie.

I suspect that some of the @metoo claims are at least exaggerated, if not outright false. But the point is, employers are not obligated to act on these claims, whether they are true or not. It isn't so much a problem of free speech, as it is people who are willing to admit what they hear on the street as sworn testimony and convene themselves as the jury to render a verdict and sentence.

Maybe Tom, Dick, or Harry did paw Betsy 10 years ago, but what does that have to do with his job as a faceless functionary at XYZ corporation? So it isn't just Betsy that is playing fast and loose with the truth. It's XYZ Corp. as well.

Perhaps if that becomes standard practice, people will eventually stop believing everything they hear (which is an epidemic in my society). It is no different from high school gossip, but with higher stakes. — Tzeentch

But this can't even possibly be the case. People hear a range of differing accounts of reality, so how can they possibly just "believe everything they hear"

Am I correct that your gripe is with the word "everything" here?

Am I correct that your gripe is with the word "everything" here? — Tzeentch

Not entirely. Obviously there's a logical problem with saying that people believe everything they're told (in that they can't possibly when told, for example, two obviously contradictory things). But actually I think there's a deeper problem when regarding how such gullible people as you describe choose which of the two contradictory things they're told they are going to believe. The strong evidence from psychology is that they will believe whichever conforms to their existing world view, even in the face of quite startling lack of rational support.

Given the above, I don't see how learning that people do not always tell the truth (as if anyone even thought they did) would make any difference at all.

In a world where speech is unregulated, people could not trust others to speak truthfully. In such circumstances, the overwhelming psychological evidence is that they would select whichever possible truth most conforms to their world view.

In a world where speech was strongly regulated and people felt that whatever was said had at least some element of truth (otherwise it wouldn't be allowed) the overwhelming psychological evidence is that they would select whichever possible truth most conforms to their world view.

I don't see any evidence to support the argument that people's reactions would be any different in either case.

Promising something isn't speech? What is it, a rabbit? — Hanover

What happened to the part after the word "and"?

Does anyone know of a philosophy board where it's not like talking to "educated morons"/"intelligent retards," regardless of whether people are really like that or whether they just like act like it because they think it's amusing or they're bored or whatever? I'd like to be able to talk about philosophy with people who don't have problems understanding kindergarten-level material. If you know of a board that's like what I'm looking for, then not only would you help me, but you could be rid of someone who thinks that almost everyone here (except for the person who points me to the board in question, of course ;-) ) is essentially a moron.

A self inflicted wound. Ive noticed and mentioned you seem to have alot of patience for the moronic and observe you wasting time engaging that way but if rather than a virtue this is something that you’ve just done without noticing the futility then two questions: whose actually being moronic and why don’t you go away?

So no knowledge of a better philosophy board?

Well not if I tell you about it and you show up

Just stop engaging with people who you think arent worth engaging with. If that's everyone, then how can you possibly think anyone here is going to lead you to some philisophical promised land where everyones as brilliant as you are? By accident? Lol

Edited: was supposed to have an emoji to indicate jest after thst first sentence but it didnt show up.

It is actually impossible to stop discrimination for that reason. — ernestm

It's only impossible to handle the balance of free speech vs harmful speech if you handle it as a binary system. If you are able to accept things to be a shifting complex entity rather than a simple line between two points, it's possible to handle it. But the problem is that all those in charge of handling it, does so in this binary way. In that sense, you are right that it's impossible.

But for those of us who like to solve the riddle, I think handling the subject like a tesseract rather than a cube. At a philosophical level, all things need to be that way. If something is a square you think a cube if something is a cube you think a tesseract. I don't think that this subject is unsolvable, I think it's constructed of an answer that is always shifting, i.e the definitions of harmful and free speech need to be closely connected to what we perceive as being that in society.

Let's say that there comes a time when bald people would be considered lower in intelligence and a lower class of humans. Today it's not very nice to call out someone's baldness, but it's not racist. It's classified more within free speech and no one is going to call out someone for making fun of baldness as being racist or committing a hate crime. But if there is a general idea through society that they have lower intelligence and are a lower class people, it has become racism and the harmful vs free speech should reflect that at that time.

There's been a lot of research done on how hateful speech triggers behavior that is harmful to the people the hate speech is about. It's generally not about someone getting hurt by the words, but by how the acceptance of hateful speech numbs a society into a certain behavior. Talking about Jews as a lower class people or calling them vermin, as was done in 30's Nazi-Germany, didn't result in the words themselves hurting Jews. Even if they did get hurt and many fell into depressing mental health issues, the biggest threat was how the general talk formed the entire society into acceptance of how Jews should be treated. People stopped caring when they were dragged out into the streets and forced onto trains. Because of years of talking about them as vermin made people accept them as vermin. People, collectively, are pretty much stupid in this regard. Over a course of time, you can make a population think and feel just about anything if you know how to do it. Anyone who thinks this is bullshit does not know about the psychology behind it and need to read up on it before pointing out that free speech should be unrestricted and binary freed.

The question shouldn't be about the binary ideas of free speech vs restricted speech. It should be how to define harmful speech since the result of unrestricted free speech has been proven to generate the worst crimes in history. It's naive to think that this is a binary topic in which you choose a position and then simplifies reality around it.

So to break down the building blocks of harmful speech that should be restricted.
1. It's not about hurting one or more peoples feelings.
2. It's about creating a negative idea about a group of people.
3. It divides people into categories that through repetition may build hate/dislike between groups.
4. It is not based on factual sources that work as a foundation for reasonable criticism of a group.

There may be added points of definitions, but in general, I think it's reasonable to define harmful speech not as hurting others directly but indirectly steers society into dividing people and creating foundations for hate that might build acceptance of negative actions against these groups. We saw it with Jews in Nazi-Germany and we see it today with immigrants and Muslims. Derogatory speech against immigrants by people like Trump and his followers has increased the acceptance-level of derogatory actions against immigrants and Muslims.

But we can also see it in other movements like the wave of feminism that's going on. As I mentioned, the derogatory talk about white men, the use of "CIS men" in derogatory ways are increasing the acceptance levels of negative actions against white men. To the point of courts lowering their level of evidence requirements in cases of sexual violence when the accused is a white man.

If you actually analyze and look closely at different speeches it's actually not that hard to spot what is harmful speech and what is free speech. If we define it through the points above it's not that hard to see when someone is using facts to criticize a group behavior, like the common violence against women within the culture of Islam and when it's harmful speech aimed at pitching groups against each other or derogatory against a certain group, like if someone says all CIS white men are responsible for violence against women. When someone is using facts to describe why there's a lot of crimes committed by a group of immigrants by analyzing their situation and socio-economical reasons, compared to when someone is using harmful speech to blame immigrants as a way to find a black sheep for their own failures.

I actually don't find it hard to spot what is what in society and I think that just taking a stance on either binary side, where you at one point want to ban all things that might sound harmful (even when it's not, in the way that blind SJWs are doing) and unrestricted freedom of speech that's oblivious to the effects it can cause down the line.

You don't choose a side, you deduce the balance and hold that ground.

Does anyone know of a philosophy board where it's not like talking to "educated morons"/"intelligent retards," regardless of whether people are really like that or whether they just like act like it because they think it's amusing or they're bored or whatever? I'd like to be able to talk about philosophy with people who don't have problems understanding kindergarten-level material. If you know of a board that's like what I'm looking for, then not only would you help me, but you could be rid of someone who thinks that almost everyone here (except for the person who points me to the board in question, of course ;-) ) is essentially a moron. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I do know of such a place, a few actually. My preferred is the large hanger at the local airfield, but any large enclosed space will do, even a cave works. Simply stand in the middle and say what you think are intelligent philosophical comments (quite loudly) and I guarantee that all you will hear in return are intelligent philosophical comments.

So to break down the building blocks of harmful speech that should be restricted.
1. It's not about hurting one or more peoples feelings.
2. It's about creating a negative idea about a group of people.
3. It divides people into categories that through repetition may build hate/dislike between groups.
4. It is not based on factual sources that work as a foundation for reasonable criticism of a group. — Christoffer

It's a good sentiment. But it still doesnt work. I used to live in a black neighborhood, and anything that I said would be interpreted as hateful. Anything at all. I couldnt even say hello without black people claiming I was trying to start a fight. They WANT racism there. Its a necessary justification for their own hatred, and there is no way to end it.

1. It's not about hurting one or more peoples feelings.
2. It's about creating a negative idea about a group of people.
3. It divides people into categories that through repetition may build hate/dislike between groups.
4. It is not based on factual sources that work as a foundation for reasonable criticism of a group. — Christoffer

One or more persons' feelings could be hurt by anything conceivable. Anything you might say, anything you might wear, any way you might look at them, etc.

Who gets to decide what's negative or not and why do they get to decide?

Dividing people into categories like "Folks who say prohibited things"?

Who gets to decide what's factual and reasonable and why do they get to decide?

It's a good sentiment. But it still doesnt work. I used to live in a black neighborhood, and anything that I said would be interpreted as hateful. Anything at all. I couldnt even say hello without black people claiming I was trying to start a fight. — ernestm

It's more of a starting point. As I mentioned, an evolving form is the most optimal form. But I would say that your example is an example of when it's not harmful speech. If you said "hi" and that was considered harmful, it was those who considered it to be so that was in the wrong. They can be right in criticism about how whites treated them, they can be right in many things about their situation and socioeconomic position and they can be skeptical about the presence of white people in their neighborhood based on previous accounts of negative events. All of those are based on point 4. If they break point 4 they are not sticking to facts and uphold point 3 and 2. If they were just out to hurt you personally, as in point 1, they wouldn't have the need to bring ethnicity/race into the way they treated you. So, they essentially didn't have the intention of hurting you personally, breaking point 1, they didn't have factual reasons for rational criticism of your presence, as in point 4 and they upheld point 2 and 3.

Therefore, they committed harmful speech and should be criticized for doing so.

So it's not an example against my points, it's enforcing that baseline even more. The example you brought up seems to be focused on the idea that harmful speech is only against minorities or specific groups in line with what we see in media, but harmful speech is based on parameters that aren't influenced by the current state of politics. You can apply those four points to any time in history between any groups of people and it's still a good baseline for judging if someone is committing hateful speech that ends up dividing people.

One or more persons' feelings could be hurt by anything conceivable. Anything you might say, anything you might wear, any way you might look at them, etc. — Terrapin Station

Point 1 is, therefore, pointing out that harmful speech isn't about hurting a specific person.

Who gets to decide what's negative or not and why do they get to decide? — Terrapin Station

By deduction of the validity of what someone says is meant to stir up hate as in point 3, or is valid criticism, as in point 4.

Dividing people into categories like "Folks who say prohibited things"? — Terrapin Station

That idea is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. By using these points to figure out if someone is using non-factual criticism of a group in order to spread hate and divide people, does not mean putting them into a group that says "prohibited things" and should, therefore, be stripped of rights. You are making an absurd hypothesis of what this is about.

Who gets to decide what's factual and reasonable and why do they get to decide? — Terrapin Station

By proper deduction of what is being said.

Why are you so focused on "who gets to decide"? It's not about who, it's about how people should spot harmful speech that is destructive on society. You seem to be extremely fixated on the idea of an authority that goes around censoring that you do not even understand the basic idea that I proposed. It's not about "who" is going to decide, it's about everyone using their intellect to know the effects of harmful speech and how to spot it. If you use those four points onto someone's criticism about a group you can deduce if it's a criticism that is made through a rational and reasonable argument or if the argument is coming from hate of a group. If Nazis are talking about Jews as vermin, does that have any factual support if you break down their argument? Or is it harmful speech that out of repetition creates hate of Jews? Point 2 and 3.

I think my point was pretty straight forward and has nothing to do with "who gets to decide". No one decides. Deduction of the intention of a speech decides if it's harmful or not. If you don't believe that harmful speech can stir up extremely destructive consequences, I think you should read up on how the apathy of the German civilian population made room for how Jews were treated. It's the most obvious and well-known example of this thing.