Well, and under what I'd have as "criminal threatening," speech isn't even necessarily part of it.

Yes I understand the distinction you are making. Just noticing the circular logic Echarmion is using.

If you have the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”, surely you can read ISIS’s propaganda magazine Dabiq. Surely you can retweet a limerick about trans-people without getting investigated by police. But we already know this is not the case.

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. — DingoJones

I was initially referring to a specific definition Terrapin provided, which explicitly listed speech, so I am not assuming that speech is relevant. As to your point, it is of course possible to write laws including an arbitrary number of elements. What we're doing here requires categories, and categories are always arbitrary. This includes talking of "speech" or "speech acts" in the first place.

It does not follow that all talk that involves categories is meaningless or circular. For example, there are reasons why certain elements are treated as constituent elements of a crime and not others. If we're concerned about not demeaning other people for example, we'd consider the communication important, but not locomotion.

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. — Terrapin Station

I am not sure what you're saying here. That it's wrong to take the hypothetical law you provided and assign it a category, such as "laws that limit speech"?

I didnt say all talk involving categories is circular. Strawman.
I said you are being circular in your argument, and pointed out exactly why.

I didnt say all talk involving categories is circular. Strawman.
I said you are being circular in your argument, and pointed out exactly why. — DingoJones

From your text, you only pointed out that my inclusion of speech is arbitrary, which I did respond to. If you think you have another argument I'd ask you to restate it.

Edit: it's perhaps worth pointing out that I was not arguing that certain speech acts should be criminal offenses under some optimal set of rules.

Right, just as arbitrary as the walking part of the crime. Just insert “walking” where “speech” is in your argument and the logic is exactly the same.
I'm not going to repeat what Ive just said a few posts ago no, but if you think Im missing something (context I presume?) I will go back and reread the exchange before my interjection.

Right, just as arbitrary as the walking part of the crime. Just insert “walking” where “speech” is in your argument and the logic is exactly the same. — DingoJones

But I am not making up these definitions. One was given by Terrapin, the other is - more or less - an actual law making insults a criminal offense in Germany.

There are reasons why Terrapin and the German lawmakers choose to include some form of communicative act in the definition, but not the mode of locomotion. There is also a reason why we have a category for laws that restrict speech, but not for crimes that restrict what gait you may adopt. This is obvious, right?

I think you are confused about what Terra is saying, but like I said I will go back and read and see what I missed that make your arguments less circular and confused than they seem right now.

"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. — Terrapin Station

But I am interested. I'm interested why I can't get through to you, in spite of talking perfect sense. If we hadn't gotten to where we are now, with your ulterior motive of standing by your stance at all costs, then you would probably agree that if I were to say that I was going to stab you to death, then that would be a threat. But I suppose I've answered my own question there. We obviously just have different priorities. Yours is saving face, whereas mine is the obvious truth. You must think that you can save face if you refuse to concede in the false hope that you can make your system work. But all it has going for it is consistency, which means it has next to nothing going for it. It's not at all convincing, and you don't seem to care about that feedback. You never really do. You seem quite content to live in your own little isolated topsy-turvy world.

Neo-nazi Milo Y-whatever his last name is, just announced he's broke all while having a meltdown over the fact that being deplatformed destroyed his fanbase, so no one should ever say that deplatforming doesn't work

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. — Terrapin Station

If someone says, "I'd consider certain things 'criminal assault', and I'll give you a specific outline, a specific set of criteria for what I'm referring to by that term. But, oh, by the way, it doesn't include the act of inflicting physical harm". Then anyone in their right mind would think that they were a few french fries short of a happy meal.

While we're at it, here's my criteria for 'criminial rape':

It must require two or more people.
They must come into contact with each other.
An act must take place.
And that's it.

I know what you're all thinking. You're thinking, "But what about forced nonconsensual sex?!". Well, I don't include that in my criteria.

If you have the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”, surely you can read ISIS’s propaganda magazine Dabiq. Surely you can retweet a limerick about trans-people without getting investigated by police. But we already know this is not the case. — NOS4A2

I repeat, arguments which rely on cherry picking won't work. Cherry picking is a logical fallacy. I can keep on repeating that if you like.

There are reasons why Terrapin and the German lawmakers choose to include some form of communicative act in the definition, but not the mode of locomotion. There is also a reason why we have a category for laws that restrict speech, but not for crimes that restrict what gait you may adopt. This is obvious, right? — Echarmion

Yes.

A man who posted neo-Nazi stickers on lamp-posts has been jailed for 30 months.

Nathan Worrell, 46, was found guilty of eight offences of stirring up racial hatred at Grimsby Crown Court.

During the trial, Worrell denied the Holocaust took place and said he had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

He was jailed for seven years and three months in 2008 for possessing bomb-making materials and waging a hate campaign against a mixed-race couple.

Worrell described himself in court as an "ethno-nationalist" and said he did not believe in "diversity or multiculturalism".

A police raid on his home in Scott Close, Grimsby found clothing, photographs, fridge magnets and pin badges bearing Nazi symbolism.

He posted his home-made stickers with highly offensive comments on lamp-posts and street furniture in Grimsby and Hull.

'Abhorrent'

Worrell defended his actions in court as freedom of speech.

Sentencing, Judge Paul Watson QC said Worrell was "wedded to the cause of far right nationalism and national socialism".

The judge made it clear he was not sentencing for political views "however abhorrent they may be".

He told Worrell: "Your conduct went far beyond the limits of freedom of opinion and expression which the law permits."

Det Ch Supt Martin Snowden from Counter Terrorism Policing North East, said: "These offences clearly show that Worrell has not learnt or changed his behaviour despite serving a previous prison sentence.

"By obtaining and distributing these hateful messages Worrell is inciting hatred, potentially threatening public safety and security as well as the stability of the local community." — BBC News

:up:

That it's wrong to take the hypothetical law you provided and assign it a category, such as "laws that limit speech"? — Echarmion

That's not what I was saying, but as I asked, what would you give as an example of a law that limits speech where speech isn't even necessary for it?

But I am interested. I'm interested why I can't get through to you, in spite of talking perfect sense. — S

Aren't you aware that different people think different things are "perfect sense"?

then you would probably agree that if I were to say that I was going to stab you to death, then that would be a threat. — S

I'm not saying that's not a threat. It's not what I'd consider a criminal threat; it's not anything that should be legislated against. Merely making a verbal threat is not at all sufficient for that in my opinion.

And yeah, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to a different position. That's a whole can of worms that has to do with all sorts of psychological, social, etc. issues, and it's especially futile on the Internet in forums like this.

While we're at it, here's my criteria for 'criminial rape':

It must require two or more people.
They must come into contact with each other.
An act must take place.
And that's it.

I know what you're all thinking. You're thinking, "But what about forced nonconsensual sex?!". Well, I don't include that in my criteria. — S

What I'd think is, "Okay, those are your criteria." I wouldn't argue that your criteria are something you didn't state.

Aren't you aware that different people think different things are "perfect sense"? — Terrapin Station

I am aware of that. Aren't you aware that that doesn't matter as much as what does or doesn't make perfect sense? A crazy person might think that complete nonsense makes perfect sense, but that doesn't mean a thing.

I'm not saying that's not a threat. It's not what I'd consider a criminal threat; it's not anything that should be legislated against. Merely making a verbal threat is not at all sufficient for that in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

Well, it was a poor judgement call to speak about "criminal threatening", but to exclude examples of threatening which is criminal. And philosophy is better served through good sense than through the whacky personal views of Terrapin Station. You always seem to make it about you, as if that actually matters in the bigger picture. Your views can be set aside as unimportant in the grand scheme of things, entertaining though they may be.

What I'd think is, "Okay, those are your criteria." — Terrapin Station

How can I put this delicately? You are "different" to the rest of us.

Why in the world do you think I would defer to others' opinions rather than stating my own?

How can I put this delicately? You are "different" to the rest of us. — S

And of course I'm not someone who thinks that different is a bad thing.

Why in the world do you think I would defer to others' opinions rather than stating my own? — Terrapin Station

Because, on this one, they're right and you're wrong. I guess I just have some glimmer of a hope that you might see sense enough to at least get some sense of perspective. But you almost seem entirely immune.

And of course I'm not someone who thinks that different is a bad thing. — Terrapin Station

Thinking that a cat is just a breed of dog isn't just different, it's bad in the context of acsertaining the truth, which is what philosophy is all about. Being stubborn and self-assured can only really be a good quality if you're right. Otherwise it's a real problem.

Because, on this one, they're right and you're wrong. — S

Obviously I don't agree that I'm wrong and others are right. I don't believe this is something that it's even possible to be right or wrong about.

Obviously I don't agree that I'm wrong and others are right. I don't believe this is something that it's even possible to be right or wrong about. — Terrapin Station

Oh dear. It's kind of funny that you're wrong on multiple levels. You're "right" only in your imaginary world, in which you are "king", and in which there are "criminal threats" which exclude threats which in the real world very much are criminal. You are too far removed from reality.

Oh dear. It's kind of funny that you're wrong on multiple levels. You're "right" only in your imaginary world, in which you are "king", and in which there are "criminal threats" which exclude threats which in the real world very much are criminal. — S

?? If I don't think that this is something that it's possible to be right/wrong about, then obviously I don't think that I'm right.

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. — Terrapin Station

I did... as best can be shewn given the written medium.

Thought/belief has efficacy. Hate speech consists entirely of statements thereof. Hate speech moves people to war.

Anyone who denies the power that hate speech has to move an entire population of people to war either doesn't know what they are talking about or they are speaking insincerely(deliberately misrepresenting their own thought/belief).

Neither is acceptable, for in both cases they're wrong.

The facts speak for themselves.

Some folk hereabouts offer valid arguments and counterarguments on a regular basis. You're not wunuvem.

And here yet again...

The facts speak for themselves.