True, but then it's also not someone threatening someone else. It's a dangerous situation. — Echarmion

?? But I'm defining what I'd name "criminal threatening." Nothing less than what I'm describing would count. That's why I'm spelling all of that stuff out. Those are the criteria. Think of it like a checklist.

Are you saying threatening someone doesn't require communication? — Echarmion

It doesn't require speech. I make that explicit in my criteria.

That's not just an idea my friend. — creativesoul

If you can show it's not just an idea (per my assessment of course--I don't just mean if you believe you can show it), I'll accept that. We've kind of been talking about that for awhile in the thread.

No, that wouldn't be at all sufficient. I have specific conditions that need to be met that I make explicit. — Terrapin Station

Why would I care about that?!? Any normal human being without an ulterior motive to disagree would consider it a threat. I don't reach my conclusions from Terrapin's whacky views. That would be a terrible basis to reach a conclusion. We largely agree on ethics, but not much else. You have no standing on this one. Your views are quite simply irrelevant.

?? But I'm defining what I'd name "criminal threatening." Nothing less than what I'm describing would count. That's why I'm spelling all of that stuff out. Those are the criteria. Think of it like a checklist. — Terrapin Station

And one of these criteria is that a threat is made (by someone, towards someone else, is implied).

It doesn't require speech. I make that explicit in my criteria. — Terrapin Station

But the threat can be speech. You also made that explicit. And in that case, the speech is a constituent part of the criminal act. It's not just accidental circumstance.

One issue I've been thinking of when discussing this kind of issue - one that affects and is affect by complicated phenomena (humans, for example - is that we are talking about one part of society deeply interconnected with others. (you may not think they should be thought of in this context, but bear with me....) You are arguing for absolute free speech, but you also have a set of other values, how you want society to be in other ways. What your opponents often do is - at least from what I have seen - imagine current society with this one change. IOW things are as they are, but now we have none of the current limits on free speech, and there are many. At one point with me, you responded to one of my concerns - regarding an employee - that in your 'system' she would have the ability to change jobs, presumably more easily, in general, than people can here, since you mentioned another change or direction you would want society to move in.

My point being that in addition to any values you differ with your opponents around, you may be doing two quite different things when you discuss things. They change one thing or one issue and then imagining this society as it is now with this one change. You, it seems to me, are imagining a range of choices that may have effects that would ameliorate their concerns, to some degree, perhaps next to nothing, perhaps significantly.

Might it be worthwhile to present the broader context? (I know, you don't like complicated posts presenting a range of ideas, but perhaps what I am saying is a factor in the debate, even if you never want to do what I am suggesting)

But the threat can be speech. — Echarmion

His reaction to that is obviously, "Oh yeah, well I'll just define 'threat' to exclude that from being so".

That's not an intellectually honest response. But then, this is the guy who refuses to admit that he knows that I don't believe that I'm on the moon, so it has come to be expected.

Why would I care about that?!? — S

I was asked about my view on it. I pasted what my policy would be. If you're not interested in that, then don't read (or bother commenting on) the post. The idea isn't to capture some common notion of the term (or rather some common notion of when it's morally or legally problematic).

And one of these criteria is that a threat is made (by someone, towards someone else, is implied). — Echarmion

Verbally or otherwise. But as you note, it's not just about (or even necessarily about verbal) threats in the conventional sense of that term. That's the whole point.

But the threat can be speech. — Echarmion

It can include speech, but again, the speech is not at all sufficient for it to be a problem. Hence me spelling out all of the criteria.

That's a good point, although with the speech issue, I'm not sure off-the-cuff just what the relevant other differences would be, so it would be difficult to address that . . .

Although I suppose one concern might be how one's chances of acquiring and maintaining employment, housing, etc. could be affected via speech acts, but as you know, I'd have a very different sort of social and economic system in place where there wouldn't be the same sorts of challenges for that stuff.

I was asked about my view on it. I pasted what my policy would be. If you're not interested in that, then don't read (or bother commenting on) the post. The idea isn't to capture some common notion of the term (or rather some common notion of when it's morally or legally problematic). — Terrapin Station

It's not that I'm not interested. I'm interested just like I would be if someone was saying, apparently in all seriousness, that cats are in fact just a breed of dog. But there are priorities here, like the truth, like common sense, like being reasonable, like intellectual honesty. And it was in that context that I was asking why I should care.

But there are priorities here, like the truth, like common sense, like being reasonable. — S

"Reasonable" is subjective, "common sense" is often nonsense and appeals to it are one of the lamest rhetorical tactics, and when we're talking about normatives, we're not dealing with things that are true or false.

But at any rate, sure, you're not interested. That's fine. There's probably no reason for us to go back and forth with each other about it then. Let's move on to something you're interested in.

Just to be clear. I talked about the situation where someone is sexually harrassed by a boss. TS talked about how in his system, if I am remembering right, it would be easy for her to switch jobs. IOW the problem that he could continue being a real ass is easily solved, given the economic system present. IOW consequentialists complaining about certain problematic effects of total free speech are perhaps not seeing the whole picture of what TS wants to move towards.

It can include speech, but again, the speech is not at all sufficient for it to be a problem. Hence me spelling out all of the criteria. — Terrapin Station

But the point is there are circumstances (e.g. pointing a gun at someone) where speech can turn into a crime. It's not just speech, but nevertheless the speech is criminal.

But the point is there are circumstances (e.g. pointing a gun at someone) where speech can turn into a crime. It's not just speech, but nevertheless the speech is criminal. — Echarmion

No, it isn't. The whole thing is, which doesn't even require speech.

No, it isn't. The whole thing is, which doesn't even require speech. — Terrapin Station

Insults also don't necessarily require speech. Yet if insulting someone was a crime, it would make certain speech acts (like calling someone an Idiot) criminal.

Insults also don't necessarily require speech. Yet if insulting someone was a crime, it would make certain speech acts (like calling someone an Idiot) criminal. — Echarmion

It would depend on what the person's "criminal insult" criteria would be. We'd have to ask them. Maybe they'd have detailed criteria, most of which don't have anything to do with speech, and where speech wouldn't even be necessary.

As I said above "But I'm defining what I'd name 'criminal threatening.'" It might not have much to do with your, or with any conventional notion of what threatening is.

That's why I made all of that explicit. "Criminal threatening" is just a name. What I'm referring to is what I spelled out. What anyone else might have in mind with that term might not resemble what I have in mind by it.

It would depend on what the person's "criminal insult" criteria would be. We'd have to ask them. Maybe they'd have detailed criteria, most of which don't have anything to do with speech, and where speech wouldn't even be necessary. — Terrapin Station

Why would it depend on that? I don't see the logic here. If a speech act is, in any combination, constituent element of a crime, it means that this speech act in those circumstances is therefore a criminal act.

So would you say that walking was a criminal act, because it was a constituent element of a guy walking into a bank, robbing it, then walking away?

Why would it depend on that? I don't see the logic here. — Echarmion

Because it's going to be someone's opinion of just what is problematic or not, just what should be illegal or not, etc. What one individual would call "criminal insults" might have little to do with what someone else would consider "criminal insults," and someone might have criteria for what they're naming "criminal insults" that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with speech. Which would mean they'd be using the term very unusually, probably, but people can do that.

The whole idea is that I wouldn't have "criminal threatening" where you can just intuit what I'd consider a problem. That's the whole reason for the detailed list of criteria I gave. That whole thing is what I have in mind, which each part of it a necessary component.

So would you say that walking was a criminal act, because it was a constituent element of a guy walking into a bank, robbing it, then walking away? — DingoJones

No, by constituent element I mean something that is part of the actual elements of the offense. Most definitions of robbery are not concerned with your mode of locomotion.

Because it's going to be someone's opinion of just what is problematic or not, just what should be illegal or not, etc. What one individual would call "criminal insults" might have little to do with what someone else would consider "criminal insults," and someone might have criteria for what they're naming "criminal insults" that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with speech. Which would mean they'd be using the term very unusually, probably, but people can do that. — Terrapin Station

Ok then, let's say that a criminal insult is defined as speech or another communicative act that demeans the person addressed or identified as the target of the act. Where demeans would have another definition which doesn't need to concern us.

This law would limit speech, make some speech acts criminal, correct?

The whole idea is that I wouldn't have "criminal threatening" where you can just intuit what I'd consider a problem. That's the whole reason for the detailed list of criteria I gave. That whole thing is what I have in mind, which each part of it a necessary component. — Terrapin Station

I understand that all parts of the definition need to be fulfilled. But this is true for currently existing laws concerning speech as well. Very few of those will make speech acts illegal regardless of circumstances (comedic acts will almost always be excluded, for example). Yet all these laws are considered limitations on speech. So the same would be true for your proposed "criminal threatening" law.

Ok then, let's say that a criminal insult is defined as speech or another communicative act that demeans the person addressed or identified as the target of the act. Where demeans would have another definition which doesn't need to concern us.

This law would limit speech, make some speech acts criminal, correct? — Echarmion

??? No, obviously not. If the person isn't even referring to speech, how would it make any speech acts criminal?

Maybe this would be easier: what would you say is an example of a law prohibiting any speech where it's not necessary to utter (or write, etc.) any speech?

??? No, obviously not. If the person isn't even referring to speech, how would it make any speech acts criminal? — Terrapin Station

So calling someone an "asshole" would not be a criminal speech act (we'll assume it's demeaning)?

So calling someone an "asshole" would not be a criminal speech act (we'll assume it's demeaning)? — Echarmion

Not if someone is defining "criminal insult" so that it has nothing to do with speech.

No, by constituent element I mean something that is part of the actual elements of the offense. Most definitions of robbery are not concerned with your mode of locomotion. — Echarmion

Well you are just defining speech as a constituent element. Its no more constituent than the walking. Thats my point, the logic is the same so you aren’t being consistent when you include one and not the other.

Not if someone is defining "criminal insult" so that it has nothing to do with speech. — Terrapin Station

That's, frankly, absurd. The act is a) criminal and b) a speech act. According to your logic, the vast majority of laws concerning insults and hate speech aren't actually about speech. So I guess the free speech utopia is already here.

Well you are just defining speech as a constituent element. Its no more constituent than the walking. — DingoJones

It is, because it's one of the things that needs to be positively established and will show up in the indictment. Walking won't.

Thats my point, the logic is the same so you aren’t being consistent when you include one and not the other. — DingoJones

I think this perhaps seems so due to not being familiar with the technicalities of law enforcement. There are elements of a crime which need to be enumerated in the indictment. Those can still come in different forms ( an insult can be words of a gesture), but the concrete form must be listed. Whether the person was walking or in a wheelchair, and what they had for breakfast, does not need to be listed.

That's, frankly, absurd. The act is a) criminal and b) a speech act. According to your logic, the vast majority of laws concerning insults and hate speech aren't actually about speech. So I guess the free speech utopia is already here. — Echarmion

It seems like you're not understanding me at all.

I'm not saying anything about existent laws and "what they're actually about."

I'm saying that if someone says, "I'd consider certain things 'criminal insults,'" and they give you a specific outline, specific criteria for what they're referring to by that term, then trying to argue from a broader perspective based on other conventions isn't going to work. You'd need to just look at the criteria they spelled out, and the criteria could be anything. It's possible for their criteria to not even be about speech at all.

I'm naming something "criminal threatening." I could have named it anything. What's problematic about it, why I'd make it illegal, in my opinion, is exactly what I spelled out--a particular, limited set of physical circumstances. Speech isn't even required for it. The whole motivation for it is that I agree that there are particular physical circumstances that are problematic that aren't someone actually applying significant nonconsensual physical force to someone else. It's simply a set of situations where there's a high probability (so including a good reason to believe) that significant, immediate nonconsensual physical force would be applied, whether intentionally or accidentally/via negligence, because there are implements/instruments present, in use, that can easily produce significant nonconsensual physical force, and there's no practical means of relatively easily escaping the immediate risk of force from those implements/instruments.

It might also not be clear (although it seems to me like it should be), that the context of "I'd consider certain things 'criminal threatening'--here's how I define that/what my criteria would be" is "If I were king and creating laws from scratch, here's what I'd do."

The speech only needs to be positively established because you are defining it as part of the crime, what Im saying is you could just as easily define walking in exactly the same way. Your inclusion of one as part of the crime and not the other is arbitrary, and based on a preconceived notions about speech that you hold. Do you see? You are assuming speech as part of a crime as part of your argument that speech is a crime.