What's the difference, other than you giving it a different name? — Echarmion

What did I say the difference was?

What did I say the difference was? — Terrapin Station

None of your previous answers indicated any relevant difference to me. But I'd rather drop this and ask you to answer my other question than go down a rabbit hole about what is and isn't a relevant difference.

None of your previous answers indicated any relevant difference to me. — Echarmion

You're asking me what I think the difference is. I gave info for this already. What did I say?

You're asking me what I think the difference is. I gave info for this already. What did I say? — Terrapin Station

Sorry, not interested in teacher / student roleplaying here. If you like you can engage with the rest of my previous questions.

Sure, so I have no interest in a conversation the way you're going about it. I guess you're not that interested in what I think, in which case don't bother pretending to be in the first place.

Sure, so I have no interest in a conversation the way you're going about it. I guess you're not that interested in what I think, in which case don't bother pretending to be in the first place. — Terrapin Station

True, I am not really interested in what you think on this topic, or rather it's sufficiently clear to me from what you wrote. I am interested in your arguments and whether they hold up.

It's not that speech can't have an effect on others. It's that it can't be shown to force them to perform particular actions. — Terrapin Station

That's you. Others treat speech as having only the effects of gibberish. Presumably of a similar volume and pitch. IOW speaking to someone does not cause any other effects than speaking gibberish. I really had that discussion - a rather interesting one - for a series of posts. Might not have been the guy I just responded to, but it wasn't you, in any case.

Would this be a general heuristic in law for you? If an action cannot be shown to force people to do something, then it should be legal?

I am interested in your arguments and whether they hold up. — Echarmion

My arguments are what I think. Whether you talk about them to me or with others or just think about them to yourself, you have to know what I'd say to know whether it holds up. But a little over a half hour ago you asked me something that you should have known the answer for, with respect to my arguments, since I already said it, in response to a question you had asked me, just 90 minutes prior to that.

It's kind of hard to examine someone's arguments and whether they hold up when you're so uninterested in them that you can't even recall what they are 90 minutes later. (Of course, assuming one knows and understands them in the first place.)

Would this be a general heuristic in law for you? If an action cannot be shown to force people to do something, then it should be legal? — Coben

Yes. In general, my disposition is that of a minarchist libertarian. (It's just that I don't agree with other U.S. party-styled Libertarians (minarchists or not) that it's okay if some people simply can't manage via a free market to have a home, food, health care, education, employment, etc. when they want it, so I'd structure the economy very differently. I don't care about capitalism. I'd have an "official" socialist economy, though it wouldn't disallow people to do whatever they like consensually.)

In general, I want a minimum of punitive laws, and I'd prefer to err on the side of fewer laws rather than more. I also don't agree with the way we've set up the criminal justice system, prisons, etc.

At any rate, I'd basically just focus punitive laws on the typical libertarian triumvirate -- (1) nonconsensual violence/physical force, which I'd require (a) have physical evidence, (b) be causally demonstrable, and (c) be of at least a minimum severity (so that we're not prosecuting people who accidentally stepped on your foot, poked you in the arm to get your attention, etc.) (2) property crimes -- requiring evidence, etc., and again, of at least a minimum severity, and (3) contractual fraud -- requiring documentation, and again, of at least a minimum severity.

A more colloquial way of understanding my view on this is that it's basically a "hippie" idea (since I'm basically a hippie in many ways): Let your freak flag fly, chill out/be mellow(--don't overreact)/let other people do their thing, and help each other out on the commune.

Hate speech must be included in free speech, lest we find ourselves mediating what defines hate speech. A sense of fluid morality that changes with the whim of the next offended person. If we limit what people can say, will tomorrow we limit what they can think?

Hate speech must be included in free speech, lest we find ourselves mediating what defines hate speech. A sense of fluid morality that changes with the whim of the next offended person. If we limit what people can say, will tomorrow we limit what they can think? — Beliefofmine

Yeah, that's a can of worms we didn't get into--just what counts as hate speech?

In some posts in the thread, people have already even endorsed considering some satire hate speech.

It appears that hate speech isn't as clear cut as it used to be in the past. The current sentiment seems to be anything that offends anyone is hate speech, and subject to censorship. Which I find concerning looking towards the future. I think intent is important, but it is hard to know intent in the moment.

Which wouldn't be problems then. One can't really complain about people who try to limit free speech if one thinks speech cannot have negative effects on people, even other people.

But by limiting speech (through coercion, no less) they limit speaking, reading, conversation, which are actions which have meaningful and important effects.

My arguments are what I think. — Terrapin Station

Well they're a subset. But it should be clear what I mean, no?

But a little over a half hour ago you asked me something that you should have known the answer for, with respect to my arguments, since I already said it just 90 minutes prior to that. — Terrapin Station

I asked for a relevant difference. So I don't think the answers you did give amounted to more than semantics. You're not going to agree with this, I suppose. Me repeating what you said won't help though.

It's kind of hard to examine someone's arguments and whether they hold up when you're so uninterested in them that you can't even recall what they are 90 minutes later. — Terrapin Station

Of course, if you're going to interpret your fellow posters in the most condescending way possible, that is the conclusion you will reach.

Regarding what you just replied to Coben, do you think offering people money for committing crimes on your behalf should be legal?

It appears that hate speech isn't as clear cut as it used to be in the past. The current sentiment seems to be anything that offends anyone is hate speech, and subject to censorship. Which I find concerning looking towards the future. I think intent is important, but it is hard to know intent in the moment.

We should always remember that censorship is itself a form of bigotry and intolerance, and “hate speech” (speech I hate) is only the newest heresy.

I asked for a relevant difference. So I don't think the answers you did give amounted to more than semantics. — Echarmion

(1) How am I supposed to know what you consider relevant or not, since you're really asking for that--a difference that you would consider relevant (and why would I go fishing for this anyway)?, and (2) How is describing a difference not going to be semantic? We'd be talking about what terms are referring to.

Regarding what you just replied to Coben, do you think offering people money for committing crimes on your behalf should be legal? — Echarmion

No.

(1) How am I supposed to know what you consider relevant or not, since you're really asking for that--a difference that you would consider relevant (and why would I go fishing for this anyway)?, and (2) How is describing a difference not going to be semantic? We'd be talking about what terms are referring to. — Terrapin Station

See, and this is why I said I'd rather drop it, because there is simply no way I can communicate to you what I mean in a manner that you will find satisfactory. Essentially, for the purposes of arguing, I consider your argument and a "cost-benefit analysis" to fall into the same category. E.g. it's an argument from consequences rather than from principles.

What I think Echamion and others are saying is that - again given human nature and the history of mankind - allowing all hate speech will increase the odds that that authoritarian regimes will arise - exactly the opposite result that we all desire.

I don’t think it can be shown that free speech leads to authoritarian regimes, nor that such a regime can exist under conditions of free speech. Censoring free speech, on the other hand, is to emulate and engage in the behavior of authoritarian regimes.

The US, which has the greatest protections of free speech in the history of the world, has progressed beyond slavery, segregation, internment camps, not in spite of the protections but because of them. Meanwhile, in the UK, one can get investigated for tweets.

Chomsky makes a good point about this in regards to neo-fascism and Holocaust denial.

Do you guys remember the curious case of Michelle Carter, who encouraged her boyfriend by text message to commit suicide?

She was convicted of “involuntary manslaughter”, the crime of killing a human being, despite it being an obvious suicide.

How do we square that circle?

Essentially, for the purposes of arguing, I consider your argument and a "cost-benefit analysis" to fall into the same category. — Echarmion

To which I already said, "This is the game where we wonder if we can interpret everything in some particular way, regardless of how anyone else is thinking about it." (And the answer to that wondering is almost always "Yes.")

it's an argument from consequences rather than from principles. — Echarmion

I'm not actually sold on the deontology vs. consequentialism distinction holding water.

I don’t think it can be shown that free speech leads to authoritarian regimes, — NOS4A2

I didn't address his post yet, but I don't think that, either.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with authoritarian regimes in principle. I don't have a preference for one form of government over another. What I care about are the laws in place.

Why would I care if laws I disagree with have been decided by a lone individual, a small group of people, or a large majority?

For example, I'm against banning hate speech. If a large majority of people in a democracy are in favor of banning hate speech, and that's why it's banned, that doesn't make me feel any better about it than if a dictator had banned it.

And I'd rather live under a dictator who doesn't ban hate speech than live in a democracy that does.

I don't care about how many people are deciding laws. I care about the laws they're making. Maybe if my views were very mainstream, so that I usually felt the way about things that most people feel, then I'd have a preference for democracies, but this is not the case.

I didn't address his post yet, but I don't think that, either.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with authoritarian regimes in principle. I don't have a preference for one form of government over another. What I care about are the laws in place.

Why would I care if laws I disagree with have been decided by a lone individual, a small group of people, or a large majority?

I think that in an authoritarian regime those laws you disagree with would be difficult to challenge and change given that strict obedience to them would be presupposed.

I think that in an authoritarian regime those laws you disagree with would be difficult to challenge and change given that strict obedience to them would be presupposed. — NOS4A2

My views are often way, way, out in left field compared to most folks' views. It's no easier to change anything I disagree with in a democracy. There are many issues where I'm not aware of anyone else having the same opinion as me, and it's not as if I'm swaying anyone's opinions.

It would be easier for me to sway one person's views (like a dictator) than a million persons' views.

My views are often way, way, out in left field compared to most folks' views. It's no easier to change anything I disagree with in a democracy.

I’m the same way. But I think the very fact that people are able to dissent from orthodoxy is invaluable.

I'll take the orthodoxy I agree with that you can't dissent from. ;-)

That way we don't have to worry about people making hate speech laws and such.

Ha. I could only dream of a world where free speech was the rule rather than the exception. Either way if someone dissented from that I would defend their right to do so.

Yes, can't wait for this dreamy world where those who can afford it are allowed to hire thugs to beat up, knock off, or torture anyone they don't like; where threats, intimidation, and coercion become just routine exercises in freedom; where those who incite hatred and violence are fully protected under the law while their victims just have to suck it up; and, as an environment of fear and loathing is fostered unopposed, we all sit around the campfire and sing songs of worship to our deity, Free Speech.

(Or we could allow 99.99% of speech to be free and just put some sensible limitations on the stuff that is likely to have extremely negative consequences for both individuals and society as a whole (like hate speech). Sorry, just a weird thought...)

This will move us away from hate speech/free speech, but it is in the background of my thoughts while following this. Sexual harrassment in companies. A boss who makes sexual comments to his women (or men, but let's keep it to one group). Does not back off from this pattern when challenged. Can companies limit the bosses speech within the laws of your country? Can this kind of thing be contracted? Then a jump even further away.

Your neighbor practices his electric guitar until five in the AM and your bed actually vibrates - and not in a fun way. No way to call in the law? or can one? How do you see something like this getting resolved?