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. — NOS4A2

If the method through which they try to limit free speech is to speak about their ideas about the problems with totally free speech and hate speech and this leads to people voting for legislation, or for legislators, against pure free speech, then either

their use of free speech led to problems and you agree with them, that free speech leads to bad things
or
it did not lead to problems.

The people here are just exercising free speech. If this should be stopped, I can't see how your position holds.

If you disagree only, well that's another thing.

(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...)

That’s the line of thinking for blasphemy laws for instance, that evil words beget evil deeds and laws against it must be enforced in order to protect the greater public good. It turns out it wasn’t so sensible.

That’s the line of thinking for blasphemy laws for instance, that evil words beget evil deeds and laws against it must be enforced in order to protect the greater public good. It turns out it wasn’t so sensible. — NOS4A2

Yes. Banning blasphemy turns out not to be conducive to a healthy society. Banning homosexuality turned out not to be necessary either, so should we now repeal the law against all sexual activity including rape and child molestation? No, because guess what... It turns out the world is actually a little bit complicated.

Surprisingly it transpires that in a system involving the interacting desires and abilities of 7 billion heterogeneous individuals one blanket rule doesn't quite predict the best results.

I'd rather acknowledge that sometimes words do lead to bad things than allow a situation where someone could order my family to be murdered and receive no punishment because some had an ideological attachment to free speech laws even more irrational than religious fundamentals' attachment to blasphemy laws.

In terms of hate speech, it's very difficult to write into law something that is highly contextual in practice, and there's always a risk of it going wrong, but on balance I'd prefer a society where extreme cases of hate speech, for example, surrounding a black person, shouting the N word at them and threatening to lynch them was not tolerated. I wouldn't make something like Holocaust denial illegal though as it is in some countries. What for me is objectionable is the immediate threat of violence and the intimidation that follows rather than the spreading of false or disgusting ideas.

I'd rather acknowledge that sometimes words do lead to bad things than allow a situation where someone could order my family to be murdered and receive no punishment because some had an ideological attachment to free speech laws even more irrational than religious fundamentals' attachment to blasphemy laws. — Baden

I haven't read much of this discussion, but...

Do any serious commentators argue that ordering murder etc. ought to be defended on the basis of the principle of freedom of speech, or on the basis of its constitutional safeguards? I don't think even (reasonable) free speech absolutists would advance that position. Now, this may cast doubt on the purported absolutism of free speech absolutism--in that even it admits exceptions to the freedom of speech acts in general--but I don't think it's what is at issue in the wider debate.

on balance I'd prefer a society where extreme cases of hate speech, for example, surrounding a black person, shouting the N word at them and threatening to lynch them was not tolerated — Baden

What you're referring to here as hate speech would surely be covered by things like criminal threat, intimidation, or incitement to violence. Isn't the introduction of hate speech legislation precisely to cover other cases, namely of harm interpreted more widely, or offence--cases that don't fall under the other laws?

What you're referring to here as hate speech would surely be covered by things like criminal threat, intimidation, or incitement to violence. Isn't the introduction of hate speech legislation precisely to cover other cases, namely of harm interpreted more widely, or offence--cases that don't fall under the other laws? — jamalrob

I'm no expert on the rest of the world, but, as I've quoted before in this discussion, the ECtHR definition is "forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism,discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin"

So yes, it does extend beyond direct incitement to violence, into incitement to hatred. It does this, of course, on the very sensible precautionary principle that hatred probably leads to violence (and other forms of discriminating and degrading treatment), and that if we're wrong about that we have lost very little.

It is this cost-benefit analysis that the discussion has really been about, though many refuse to see it that way.

Do any serious commentators argue that ordering murder etc. ought to be defended on the basis of the principle of freedom of speech, or on the basis of its constitutional safeguards? I don't think even (reasonable) free speech absolutists would advance that position — jamalrob

No they don't, but it was a response to this unreasonable position and follow ups to it.

Should state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence.
— Wittgenstein

No, not in my view. A number of times I've brought up the extreme case that people like to bring up (and I now see you did in the following post): to my knowledge, Hitler never killed anyone. I don't know what, if any crimes (that I'd consider a crime) he committed, but certainly no speech, nothing he ever ordered, etc. should be considered a crime. — Terrapin Station

But yes, we should move away from this to a more sensible level of debate.

It is this cost-benefit analysis that the discussion has really been about, though many refuse to see it that way — Isaac

Yes, it's unfortunate that Terrapin, whose views are essentially a parody of free speech advocates' positions, has taken up so much oxygen in the discussion. There are dangers to having hate speech laws (I know of some cases in the UK where they've been used over-zealously), but there are potentially more dangers to not having them. It's a debate worth having.

I know of some cases in the UK where they've been used over-zealously — Baden

That would be a really interesting start. Do you have the case details to hand that you could give examples?

I have one in particular I'd like to mention but don't have the time at the minute to present it. I'll be back.

So yes, it does extend beyond direct incitement to violence, into incitement to hatred. — Isaac

But that is a criterion that can be adapted to many purposes. No doubt the Chinese Communist Party could claim that the Hong Kong protestors are encouraging ‘hatred against the Motherland’. And in China, you can be jailed indefinitely on that basis.

What you're referring to here as hate speech would surely be covered by things like criminal threat, intimidation, or incitement to violence. Isn't the introduction of hate speech legislation precisely to cover other cases, namely of harm interpreted more widely, or offence--cases that don't fall under the other laws? — jamalrob

Yes, it wasn't a great example because it partly related to other stuff that had come up and there's a danger of conflating the two issues.

But that is a criterion that can be adapted to many purposes. No doubt the Chinese Communist Party could claim that the Hong Kong protestors are encouraging ‘hatred against the Motherland’. — Wayfarer

Yes, absolutely. But the ability of a government to misuse legislative power is not alone a justification for not giving it to them. A government could determine that taking water from a stream constituted 'theft' and thereby crimilaise camping, but that doesn't advise abandoning laws against theft, only that what constitutes 'theft' needs to be carefully circumscribed to prevent abuse.

There are literally pages of limitations and caveats within both the original ECtHR article, and in the legislation of the country's adopting it designed to prevent such abuse.

The UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, for example, states in section 29j "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

That seems quite clear to me

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? — Coben

No.

But note that I'd not have a capitalist system in the first place. I'd have a socialist system, which also wouldn't be based on money in any traditional sense. In my system, if someone is uncomfortable with someone they're working with, it's no problem to simply work somewhere else instead, with people who you like better.

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? — Coben

I'd have "sensory ordinances" similar to what we have now re sounds, smells, flashing lights, etc.

dangers to not having them — Baden

Which I don't agree with, obviously.

And they're not factual dangers, of course, because there is no such thing. It depends on what one considers a problem or not.

For example, with no speech restrictions, people are more likely to be offended. Is that a danger? No. The problem with offense is that some people are offendable. The problem isn't the speech that offends.

I'd have "sensory ordinances" similar to what we have now re sounds, smells, flashing lights, etc. — Terrapin Station

So if I don't like the sound of an electric guitar, I'd have recourse, but if I don't like the sound of "gays should be killed" I'd have nothing. Any reason why some sounds are legislated against and others aren't in your dystopia? Or is it just on a whim?

So if I don't like the sound of an electric guitar, I'd have recourse, but if I don't like the sound of "gays should be killed" I'd have nothing. Any reason why some sounds are legislated against and others aren't in your dystopia? Or is it just on a whim? — Isaac

If the sensory stimuli are intense (loud, strong, etc.) and persistently permeating your abode during a time that you need to sleep, or in a manner that's going to cause physical problems otherwise (for example, sounds can make you deaf), you have recourse. You'd have that with someone saying "Gays should be killed" if it's loud enough and persistent, too. But it has nothing to do with semantics--this would be the case just as well if someone was saying, "I love Isaac; everyone should give him money," It has to do with a loud, persistent sound at a particular time of day or that would cause a physical problem otherwise.

Again, by the way, this isn't something unusual. It's the case in countries like the U.S. now, that there are noise ordinances, etc., but there are not prohibitions against someone saying something you don't like.

this isn't something unusual. It's the case in countries like the U.S. now, that there are noise ordinances, etc — Terrapin Station

Yes, but not of the sort you're describing in your dystopia, that's what I was asking for clarification about. The modal ordinance from the EPA, for example describes violations as noises which are "unwanted" and "disturbing". Not just those that physically damage your ears. You, unsurprisingly, have limited the state's role to just about keeping everyone alive, and the rest of their welfare can go hang. Don't try and pretend that's a normal position.

Yes, but not of the sort your describing in your dystopia, that's what I was asking for clarification about. The modal ordinance from the EPA, for example describes violations as noises which are "unwanted" and "disturbing". Not just those that physically damage your ears. You, unsurprisingly, have limited the state's role to just about keeping everyone alive, and the rest of their welfare can go hang. Don't try and pretend that's a normal position. — Isaac

I keep getting the impression that people here have basically zero interaction with the real, practical world. Why would you think that I'm talking about the EPA??

Municipalities have noise, lighting, etc. ordinances. They're instituted in the manner that I'm describing.

You, unsurprisingly, have limited the state's role to just about keeping everyone alive, and the rest of their welfare can go hang. — Isaac

This bears no resemblance to what I'd do, and I've described what I'd do many times, including on this site.

The 1972 noise act allows for ordinances to be created municipally, it advises they are based on the 'modal' ordinance which is published by the EPA, failing that to default to the IFA definition which is much the same. If you have to hand any municipal ordinance which sets acceptable noise levels only at those which physically damage he ear, I'd like to see them.

If you have to hand any municipal ordinance which sets acceptable noise levels only at those which physically damage he ear, — Isaac

Why can't you read? I didn't write what you're strawmanning there.

This is why I won't write longer posts. People can't read five words and understand them.

No, I know you didn't. You very much implied that noises which people found disturbing would also be covered, as they are in reality by the actual ordinances whose 'usualness' you cited in support of your position.

Then you back-tracked when I pointed out that verbal expressions people find disturbing would have the same status.

You too often presume that people re-phrasing your position in unsympathetic terms have misunderstood it, when rather, they are parodying what they see as its logical consequences.

You very much implied that noises which people found disturbing would also be covered — Isaac

No, I didn't.

It's so frustrating that I can't meet you in person or at least talk to you on the phone, say, as that would give me a better insight into what's wrong with you, why you can't read, or why you're so dishonest, or whatever the problem is.

When someone misinterprets what you have said, what are you gaining by repeatedly posting "wrong!" in various forms, as if we're sitting a 'what Terrapin reckons' exam?

What would be the purpose of initially writing the post if its a one-off attempt to communicate which you refuse to build on, or state more clearly (to the reader) and yet, it seems, consistently fails to actually communicate?

I honestly don't understand what you are posting for.

You don't post as if you're interested in my views per se. If you were interested in my views per se, you'd post as Coben does--in a friendly manner, where there's a clear, good-faith curiosity.

You, like many others here, want to argue. But you want to argue where it's clear that either you didn't really (closely) read, or didn't understand what I wrote, or you simply would rather be dishonest as a tactic. (Again, it's much easier to figure out these sorts of options with in-person cues.) That's clear because either points are made in the context of a strawman or questions are asked where I already addressed whatever it is. Yet one proceeds to aggressively argue anyway.

If something I said isn't clear to you, ask about it as if you're interested, and I'll explain another way.

If you think you understand what I said but I repeatedly point out that you don't, then maybe take a step back and wonder if maybe you're not really gleaning what I have in mind, and then ask clarifying questions as if you're interested, and I'll explain.

Most people here are simply interested in arguing, though. They're not really interested in others' views solely because others have different views and they're curious about others.

There's no "cost" to consider. — Terrapin Station

Yes there is. Your opinion doesn't matter in the bigger picture.

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

No, you've already been told that that's a straw man.

Yes there is. Your opinion doesn't matter in the bigger picture. — S

If enough people have a different opinion, then in terms of what's practically the case re laws, etc., they can institute something I don't agree with. Sure. That's the case.

No, you've already been told that that's a straw man. — S

It's not a straw man because I'm not presenting it as someone else's argument. I'm explaining that what matters to me in this context is force. If speech isn't forcing others to be violent, then I'd not ban speech. It would have to be forcing the situation I want to avoid.

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

You have access to the internet. Look it up.