Harm, impact, yes. That must be weighed against the harm and impact of restricting speech. — DingoJones

Of course. In the case of Westbrook the fan was disruptive enough to potentially cause an incident.

As the OP quoted, all your other freedoms come from your freedom to speak. Even the bad speech, because whatever harm that causes is a picnic compared to the alternative. — DingoJones

True, but there are limitations. You don't have freedom of speech with at-will jobs.

Words cannot enslave, this requires physical force — DingoJones

I suspect you're not American nor African-American? Ever heard of Willy Lynch letters? Perhaps you want to read that. Furthermore speech has a psychological impact especially if used with physical force, but you can enslave someone even with speech.

Words cannot maim, this requires physicsl force, or physical injury/harm — DingoJones

Without speech which is the requirement to cause harm when it comes historical slavery yes. You're taking it quite literally which is not something you ought to do. Most certainly speech can be attached to a harm done by someone.

Retaliatory against other violence. Shoot if your shot at, hit when you are hit upon, yell when you are yelled at. Its pretty simple. — DingoJones

Um, you didn't get it.

I know you have an idea of what kinds of speech should be responded to with violence — DingoJones

At this point judging by your response you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

If you grant people the right to commit violent acts in response to speech then violence will become normal — DingoJones

But where am I saying that. I'm merely highlighting that inflammatory speech that is racist in an arena where the target of the racist epithet, could potentially have members of the same demographic can be a problem. Besides a basketball arena, like a football arena are private businesses as well so yes your speech is limited.

To Terrapins point, you should be restricted to using your voice to fight back, not your fists unless you’ve been attacked with fists. — DingoJones

I agree you "ought" to be restricted but in reality that is not the case. I think from a sociological standpoint based on history you and Terrapin lack the historical understanding how residual pain through the proxy of words can indeed affect people. I think as a non-member of said demographic you don't get to define for someone else how they ought to react given the residual affects of the elements of a given word(s).

I think I understand, thanks. Let me check. If someone came into my house (invited or not) and started making racist jokes (by which I mean jokes I think are racist) I would either ask them to stop or chuck them out. I would do so on the grounds that I don't like racist jokes and I have the power to throw them out of my house.

If I'm a boss of a company, and one of my employees makes a joke I think is racist, I would either ask them to stop or fire them (presuming that doing so was otherwise legal re his employee rights).

The two scenarios sound the same to me, the house/company and the guest/employee seem comparable. And yet, if all bosses felt that way, then the last one to act on those feelings would fall foul of your "making it difficult for someone to earn a living" restriction.

If we introduce a third scenario. A group of people collectively own/run a country, a citizen of that country makes a joke they (collectively) feel is racist and so they ask him to stop. Yet this scenario falls foul of many of your restrictions.

So, am I right in thinking that it's your restrictions on the imposition that preferences have on others that govern what you'd like to see tolerated and what you feel could be justifiably restricted?

Honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with saying “sell the team” or “get down on your knees”. — I like sushi

Well in the first instance there is nothing wrong per se, but the owner is known to be quite "emotional." For the latter, as I mentioned to another poster, the context can be perceived as racial. If you're not of the demographic and do not share the collective experience of said demographic especially when it comes to historical racism you're in no position to define what is pejorative and what isn't. you're speaking as an outsider and for all intensive purposes, it's not a plausible position. That is like someone using the word homo in the context of a joke. Although you may find it funny someone who is homosexual may not, but you don't sit there and define that such and such speech using the word homo is not inflammatory. This is your position but by no means does it reflect reality.

If someone does use racial slurs at a sporting event they shouldn’t be surprised if they’re thrown out and banned.

Isn’t this obvious? — I like sushi

Not to those that believe in freedom of speech. These advocates believe that in all facets of society one ought to be free to use inflammatory speech regardless where they are and that is not aligned with reality. People even at my job are getting fired for posting stuff on Facebook about their employer. The common defense in Human Resources is: "well I have freedom of speech and that is my private account."

Wrong.

People forget that in at-will employment states they can almost fire you for anything even if you're using a social media platform that is "private" if someone told HR on the type of speech you're using you can most certainly get fired. In sporting arenas as you've stated, these are private businesses and if they find you disruptive and combative towards players you most certainly will get banned.

Usually people stressing that (free) speech has "consequences" are folks who support things like violence in response to speech in some instances, taking away or making it difficult for someone to earn a living, basically ostracizing or blacklisting the person, etc — Terrapin Station

Apparently if you're referencing me why not quote me?

Usually people that believe people ought to say what they want whenever they want usually end up unemployed or worse, beat up or shot. I do not condone violence in any way, however I'm not surprised if someone ends up hurt for using pejorative remarks. I think if you're stupid enough to use racial epithets towards a player which may have people of the same demographic you shouldn't be surprised that you are pummeled. I think it takes actual cognitive thinking and maturity to demonstrate restraint of speech in this regard.

Apparently if you're referencing me why not quote me? — Anaxagoras

That wasn't intended to reference you. I don't know if you think any of that stuff or not.

Just to be clear, I never intended to deny there were laws in the US against inciting violence with speech. I was simply pointing out that the quote about fire in the movie theater came well after the First Amendment, and that Schenck is no longer good law. The OP would have been better off alluding to another case.

I made a post, but for some reason it is not showing up. Your line about “fire in a movie theater” does not come from the First Amendment, was never binding, and the case it was quoted in was overturned in 1969. — czahar

You're right, but I believe the spirit of inciting violence and harm still stands.

Let me give you an example....

Do you go into a room full of MS-13 gang members with your wife and kids (this is hypothetical of course) and use racist epithets towards them? Obviously no, because your words could endanger the lives of you and those around you who were not using inflammatory speech.

I agree completely. The spirit of inciting violence, to the best of my knowledge, does stand.

Specifically:

For the latter, as I mentioned to another poster, the context can be perceived as racial. — Anaxagoras

Only by someone looking to be offended. There is absolute NOTHING racist in the comment.

Well in the first instance there is nothing wrong per se, but the owner is known to be quite "emotional." For the latter, as I mentioned to another poster, the context can be perceived as racial. If you're not of the demographic and do not share the collective experience of said demographic especially when it comes to historical racism you're in no position to define what is pejorative and what isn't. you're speaking as an outsider and for all intensive purposes, it's not a plausible position. That is like someone using the word homo in the context of a joke. Although you may find it funny someone who is homosexual may not, but you don't sit there and define that such and such speech using the word homo is not inflammatory. This is your position but by no means does it reflect reality. — Anaxagoras

That’s utter nonsense. Using abbreviations is hardly enough to get you sacked, seriously? I have someone who calls himself “homo,” that is his chosen nickname. If someone is offended by a derogatory joke then that is different. Joking about homosexual activity is not “homophobic” and joking about cultural/ethnic/racial stereotypes is not “racist” or any other “-ist” unless it’s blatantly ironic and/or purposefullu derogatory.

If you are in your work place acting in the same manner then they can pull you up about it. If someone is saying something publicly about their work then obviously, prejudice or not, they will be putting themselves in a position where they could lose their job. Note: this is if it’s AIMED specifically at a work colleague or the establishment itself.

The demographic business is more nonsense. We’re all, in some manner or another, a minority of some given group. Be it by the music we like, the clothes we wear, the length of our hair, our wealth, etc.,. One might even refer your OP to your boss and you could very well get accused of “Islamophobia” and made redundant. Somehow I think you may change our opinion VERY quickly if that happened - and make no mistake it doesn’t take much to read your post in that light, because regardless of the intent there is always someone eeadily offended demanding the law step in.

Only by someone looking to be offended. — I like sushi

I don't think people often look to be offended. I don't think NBA players in the case of Westbrook go to arena and arena looking to have a fan use inflammatory speech against them, that is wrong. I think people for the most part look to do what they please and mind their business.

There is absolute NOTHING racist in the comment. — I like sushi

To you and that is okay because you're one person with one perspective but most certainly your perspective is not reflective of reality.

Using abbreviations is hardly enough to get you sacked, seriously? — I like sushi

Jesus, it was an example. Do people on ThePhilosophyforum.com are that much of a literalist to actually think hypothetical examples which use abbreviations are actually the crux of various points that are being made? The use of the word "homo" was indeed at one point used and still is used in the context that was meant to be pejorative. Similarly the abbreviation of the word raccoon, morphed into the pejorative term "coon" in reference to African-Americans in context was meant to cause harm. Regardless whether they are abbreviated or not, in their said context these are pejorative phrases that are harmful.

Joking about homosexual activity is not “homophobic” and joking about cultural/ethnic/racial stereotypes is not “racist” or any other “-ist” unless it’s blatantly ironic and/or purposefullu derogatory. — I like sushi

Again to you it's no problem but again you are one person and your view bears no actual realistic way of approaching the subject. I invite you to look at this video (if you so choose look at the entire video) and fast forward to 43:43



As the woman said a joke was made that was completely racist and apart from her nobody got it, and sometimes speech of this sort can completely go over someone's head because the target of said joke or comment is not them.

. If someone is saying something publicly about their work then obviously, prejudice or not, they will be putting themselves in a position where they could lose their job. Note: this is if it’s AIMED specifically at a work colleague or the establishment itself. — I like sushi

Not just work, but people included. If you are a racist and use your Facebook to espouse your rhetoric while working at a hospital you most certainly can/will be fired in at-will employment states. Your free speech is not protected.

The demographic business is more nonsense. We’re all, in some manner or another, a minority of some given group — I like sushi

Not necessarily. See, you keep disregarding things as nonsense and when you state your reasons they are unsubstantiated neither with research or with anything else. If we take the United States for example despite the progressive movements and changes in our society Caucasians are still over-represented socially, economically, and psychologically. Now, when it comes to particular things like sports then yes. Even demographically when it comes to places where one resides then yes but by being a minority in regards to sports and district demographics this is minute compared to the other facets of society. This is well documented fact in research.

Be it by the music we like, the clothes we wear, the length of our hair, our wealth, etc — I like sushi

This is irrelevant especially in comparison to what matters.

Somehow I think you may change our opinion — I like sushi

Who is our? I'm in no business to change nobody's opinion and from I see a lot of opinions are not based on reality. I think people here are using a lot of jargon with their own personal conjecture. I deal with facts not jargon used in intellectual gymnastics.

I meant “your” not “our”. I am guessing I am correct and you’re willing to lose your job over it then? I know you het my point.

And no, the phrase as it is is NOT racist. The context of the “conversation” may have intended it to be racist. How do we know? Who are we to believe? It’s not difficult to see the danger involved here. And if I worked with someone who was racist, and I actually have, I wouldn’t insist they be sacked. No one is perfect. I’d rather talk to them, understand their position and try to reason with them little by little - and I did.

Not just work, but people included. If you are a racist and use your Facebook to espouse your rhetoric while working at a hospital you most certainly can/will be fired in at-will employment states. Your free speech is not protected. — Anaxagoras

I’m not that easily persuaded. I don’t think it is easy to deal with this kind of thing, but I’m not convinced it’s a good idea. Better that if someone sees this they confront the person and talk it over. Holding perculliar prejudices is not exactly a reason for destroying someone’s life imo. I’d also argue that it may actually do more damage than good too.

I'm in no business to change nobody's opinion and from I see a lot of opinions are not based on reality. — Anaxagoras

Really? So just allow the racists their racism and be done with it? How about making an attempt to change their opinions by furnishing them with something based on reality instead? I really find this the most bizarre position. Can you explain further? Or did you simply mean provide people with the measn to change their opinion rather than blugeon them to death with yours and tell them what they “should” think? In which case, obviously. I thought that would go without saying though tbh.

I don’t quite see how this is relevant to Free Speech but:

Even demographically when it comes to places where one resides then yes but by being a minority in regards to sports and district demographics this is minute compared to the other facets of society. — Anaxagoras

Other facets of society being? Have you done a comparison based on income too or only “race”?

https://blackdemographics.com/economics/employment/

Ok. One of the things I learned in graduate school studying racial intersectionality is if someone is unwilling to be open to have a different perspective outside their own mind it’s a pointless endeavor.

Asking questions is exactly, precisely being open to a different perspective, which is what Sushi did.

So, what you really mean is you learned it is pointless to have discussions with people who not automatically see things the way you do. Brilliant. You should have taken the time to learn about double standards, hypocracy and projection. These seem more pertinent for you.

So, what you really mean is you learned it is pointless to have discussions with people who not automatically see things the way you do — DingoJones

No. when it comes to discussion, if someone is unwilling to see a different perspective especially when it comes to pejorative phrases aimed at a specific group of people, and people are unwilling to understand that viewpoint because THEY think its not racist, then the discussion is pointless.

For example the subject concerning the NBA player Russell Westbrook's incident concerning the fan that made those comments towards him. I share the same cultural demographic as Westbrook so when I mentioned that I understand how Westbrook reacted towards the fan it is because I've had the same shared experiences like other African-Americans when pejorative phrases like "get on your knees like your used to" are being said in public.

I understand how sensitive those comments can be because it is those comments that were used against my grand-father and his family. The problem that I had with sushi was not his opposing view, but the point where he thinks "well, I don't see that as racist" given the fact that collectively, phrases of this kind were meant to harm African-Americans. There is the collective experience concerning these types of phrases and so essentially when a person denies that phrases of that sort are racist and aren't using reasons as to why it ultimately for me, means that these individuals are unwilling to see the cultural sensitivity of such phrases being used.

I think if read it back I said that it may have been racist, but in and of itself it isn’t a racist comment - context matters and I don’t profess to know the context/intent of the speaker.

You don’t seem willing to respond to my comments about your other thread which could be interpreted as “islamophobic”? If you lost your job over that comment would you be willing to concede that there is a point where things go too far (not to say there is no ill intent in all spech)?

If you think I am “unwilling” that is what you think. You interpret my words as you interpret them ... that is kind of my point. You seem to be sayign one thing and doing another (hence the “hypocrite” remakr thrown at you).

You don’t seem willing to respond to my comments about your other thread — I like sushi

Well maybe because I'm just not coming around, and maybe because while I'm getting to it I'm also at work which is the only time I'm able to.

You don’t seem willing to respond to my comments about your other thread which could be interpreted as “islamophobic”? — I like sushi

It wasn't "Islamophobic" considering I already tied in the ethical issues concerning terrorism in relation to extremism. In fact there are books concerning Ibn Safwan's extreme determinism and its potential association with terrorism. I mentioned terrorism in that thread because I made the connection with how extreme determinism, lack of education, and religious extremism can contribute to terrorism. Terrorism, which is a gross misrepresentation of extreme action from personal disagreement of social policy in this case the philosophy of Ibn Safwan's view of determinism seems to contribute to the root cause of heterodoxy in Islamic beliefs. Ultimately, Islam's criterion for orthodox belief holds that "justice" is the main principle of Islam:

"O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. ... And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do."-Surah 5:8

So as I mentioned in that thread Jahm ibn Safwan's position was confronted by the Mu'tazilites because Jahm's position indicated on one end passivity, even Islamic philosopher Walid ibn Ata even said:

"It is inconceivable that God might order man to do something and he be unable to do it, or feel unable to act. Whoever denies man’s ability, denies the necessity [of obedience to God].”

But then on the polar end, the extreme determinism of Jahm's view would also indicate that acts specifically evil acts like terrorism are also a part of God's will which would run counter to how God is identified in the Holy Qur'an. God is just, and so if such is true what is just about a terrorist killing a lot of innocent people? This is why the Mu'tazilites stated that mankind was given the capacity of agency which they can act upon their own will to make choices. Ultimately, the Mu'tazilites believe Ibn Safwan's Quranic interpretation was misplaced.

Now that I spent an inordinate amount of time explaining that......

I asked if your position could be interpreted as “islamophobic” I was not saying it was, wasn’t or that the term “islamophobic” is a fair label.

I’m not convinced that someone should be sacked from work because they are looked at as being some kind of “-ist” over a comment on a forum like this.

If we look at different hypothetical situations we can imagine someone being treated badly because of their religious views or attitudes towards some other demographic. Intersectionality revealed that there are a number of ways a person can be “grouped” and that within each given “group” there are more “groups”. I don’t tend to look at people as a collection of separate identities - although being human we are most certainly primed to do this when presented with minimal data.

Someone could easily say something that is regarded as socially abhorrent by the majority without realising it. We all carry around cetain prejudices. For this reason I am cautious. I do believe we should tolerate people’s prejudices but that we shouldn’t be passive about it. If someone says something crazy then I would eather ask them, try and underdtand why they think what they think what they think and challenge them. Of course in the real world we’re hardly always mindful of the manner in which we handle obscure ideas and views.

I want to talk to the extreme racists and religious zealots because it furnishes me with an understanding and helps me communicate in a more meaningful way with those not almost completely lost to such imposed blindness.

For this reason if someone is posting on facebook about killing certain demographics with obvious zeal then they should be prosecuted by the law. Sadly in todays world we seem ill-equipped to deal with the shouts and cries of the internet. People are most certainly looking to react and look for offense as it is the nature of most comments sections and the lack fo physical proximity causes people to act differently, and for people looking to their content viewed to make mountains out of mole hills in order to make money on the back of their myopic analysis that falls into whatever the latest “outrage” is.

If society lets the bigots always walk away unscathed the society is worthless. History has shown us that the balance is always teetering more one way than another, yet I do see progress (especially if we look back over the last few centuries).

I don’t think the kind of situations we’re bothered about are so clear cut. Of course some idiots will shout “free speech!” in order to cry against the treatment they receive for being blind and midguided individuals, and others will happily de-platform anyone they see as a slight threat by using their “free speech”. It’s a double-edged sword we just have to live with.

given the fact that collectively, phrases of this kind were meant to harm African-Americans. — Anaxagoras

What sort of empirical research have you done for claims like that, and logically, what do you believe the upshot of that fact is, assuming the empirical support for it is solid?

I asked if your position could be interpreted as “islamophobic — I like sushi

Ok fine, but like anything, it could or couldn't be it is up to the one observing it.

I’m not convinced that someone should be sacked from work because they are looked at as being some kind of “-ist” over a comment on a forum like this. — I like sushi

Your convincing is irrelevant when it comes to at-will employment. You can be fired at a job for most things that could be perceived as a liability to the work environment. If you held a job you'd be aware of this. Your speech matters, and people from various hospitals and other facilities have been fired over what they say over the internet. Many have argued free speech but again, if you are making comments and in this case like as you say, made the benign remark telling another African-American to "get on their knees like they used to," and I'm a witness to that and we all work in the same environment I could bring this up to HR. Most likely you'll be either questioned or reprimanded, especially if I bring evidence. Point is, it doesn't matter if you don't find it offensive or not, it matters to the ones who can hire and fire you.

If someone says something crazy then I would eather ask them, try and underdtand why they think what they think what they think and challenge them. — I like sushi

In the case where speech of this kind, in my own experience it is pointless to discuss with someone who has a perverse view of reality especially if they are dead set on it.

People are most certainly looking to react and look for offense as it is the nature of most comments sections and the lack fo physical proximity causes people to act differently, and for people looking to their content viewed to make mountains out of mole hills in order to make money on the back of their myopic analysis that falls into whatever the latest “outrage” is. — I like sushi

This is one of the many setbacks with internet. There is a project in Brazil where people who make pejorative remarks online get aired out on billboards, and by this I'm referring to their real names and faces. It begs the question whether if one would make hateful comments if their true identity was revealed?

What sort of empirical research have you done for claims like that, and logically, what do you believe the upshot of that fact is, assuming the empirical support for it is solid? — Terrapin Station

You really want me to present scholar articles? I suspect you've never taken a course dealing with cultures, race, and history? I have no issue supporting the evidence, but for any student especially in college it is apparent.

Yes, I really want you to present it, because if it wasn't clear already, I'm actually challenging that there has been any significant empirical research surveying meaning/intent for such phrases.

Also, please don't ignore what you believe the logical/implicational upshot is supposed to be.

(Re your question, by the way, do you mean a course on "culture, race and history" combined? If there were any courses on "race" when I was in school, there sure weren't many. So no, I never had a course on "race." "Race" was considered kind of a ridiculous fiction when I was in school--to be filed under "stupid shit that people actually used to believe," and I still agree with that view--which makes it disappointing that things turned around and we seemed to instead go for a full-on embrace of the concept of race academically (and personally, I think that ideological change has been responsible for a lot of problems). I certainly had a lot of history courses, and various sorts of "culture" courses, including that the two fields in which I have degrees are culture fields--philosophy and music theory/composition.)

In the case where speech of this kind, in my own experience it is pointless to discuss with someone who has a perverse view of reality especially if they are dead set on it. — Anaxogaros

I pre-emptied this response. It is still useful because understanding where someone no so far gone could go and how they get there is important defusing the situation and furnishing them with a chance of not falling into such a blackhole.

Basically I choose my battles as wisely as I can. If someone looks beyond hope I still try and probe to understand how they arrived at such a position ... and of course, like you, I just give up completely if they cannot even communicate beyond expletives.

This is one of the many setbacks with internet. There is a project in Brazil where people who make pejorative remarks online get aired out on billboards, and by this I'm referring to their real names and faces. It begs the question whether if one would make hateful comments if their true identity was revealed? — Anaxagoras

I can get onboard with that to a degree. Within there are situations that can get messy though. I do think anonymity is yet again both a hindrance and boon.

If someone can be combatted, and have their mind swayed, whilst remain anonymous, then it’s a good thing for them and they avoid taking a bad road and publicly announcing something they’d later regret. On balance I would be in favour of some kind of anonymity being refused to some select blatantly vile utterances - but then there is the problem of comedy; but I feel that is a separate issue to this because context and setting matters and on the internet the “context and setting” can be abstract.

Cannot for the life of me remember who said this “I don’t care what you call me, I care how you treat me.” I think that is a solid position to start from. In today’s world I think a slight minority are now able to stir up discontent much more easily and that the media often panders to this behaviour. I think we’ll all muddle through though eventually. Maybe it will take the better part of this century or maybe in a couple of decades such discussions would’ve moved onto other problems in society rather than the current topic of free speech.

Yep, freedom of speech clearly does not mean freedom of consequence, whether that is being slapped, arrested, banned, etc.

I don't even think that that's controversial.

The phrase reminds me of that Idi Amin quote, “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech”. Sure you can say what you want, but I cannot promise I won’t punish you for it.

Imagine saying to Marshall Kahn from Pakistan, whom was murdered by an angry mob for posting blasphemy online, “freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences”. It implies he brought it on himself, when in fact it was the mob’s superstitions and group think that caused it.

If I insult someone’s mother and they punch me in the nose, the punch is a consequence of their censorial impulses and violent proclivities, not my words. When anti-abolitionists descended upon an abolition meeting to harass, heckle and beat its attendees, (leading to Frederick Douglas’ passionate defense of free speech) that was a consequence of the mob’s bigotry and violent proclivities, not the words spoken. In the same vein, if I am arrested for something I say, that is a consequence of the laws and not my words.

This phrase seems to me an excuse for censorship. Freedom of speech means exactly the freedom from consequences.

I think a slap in the face, off the top of my head, would be a reaction I would not judge as morally wrong or impractical. I'd probably yell back shit first, and for a while. But the paparrazzi-ish free speecher on me might well get a solid slap in the face. Someone following my wife around and telling her was going to rape her, smack. I don't now what's so unholy about a bit of well placed violence. There's emotional pain and destroyed time. I would have traded a number of seriously harsh slaps to not have to listen to one boss I had. I would have happily traded those lectures for short notes with the key information the boss was getting across, if any, and a few slaps.

I do think escalating should go through a speech response, a 'get the fuck away' and perhaps even a warning.

There's nothing sacred about the nerve cells in the face as opposed to the one's in my limbic system.

You wanna torture cells at a certain point you need to expect some torture and not of your choosing either may be on the line.

Physical pain, emotional pain. Someone happy creating the latter should be ready to experience the former. They are both unpleasant.

But very often people misunderstand that contingency of free speech to believe that there is absolute freedom of expression and that their individual expression is absolved from punishment. — Anaxagoras

This is my understanding of how things are in the USA, but I'm not from there, and so I may have misunderstood. Am I right or wrong? :chin: