i oppose censoring speech (verbal/written/symbolic). At the same time it is plainly clear that speech has consequences, quite positive as well as quite negative consequences. I think free-speech advocates must acknowledge that speech has real power with real consequences.

Once acknowledged, we are able to manage the consequences. Take Trump's speech on January 6, 2020 and the immediate subsequent trashing of Congress as an example: had the Capitol security force been proactively alert to the potential for a forceful attack, appropriate measures could have / should have been taken to prevent what happened.

Shutting down free speech in Minneapolis on Memorial Day 2020 would not have been the appropriate response (referencing the riots that followed George Floyd's death). What would have been appropriate was a more forceful response to looting and arson. Instead, the police and fire departments withdrew from the area, ceding control to rioters.

A free society, where free speech is plentiful, will see political skirmishes in the streets because speech has consequences. Plentiful free speech doesn't mean that all consequences have to be tolerated.

Censorship is a huge problem, and will continue to proliferate as the means of expression become more widespread. But I think there is hope. As soon as the cowardly fear of words and voices is proven to be illusory (which, given the ease with which we can communicate, is only a matter of time), the fashionable idea that articulated sounds, marks on paper, or pixelated letters can be the same as violence will become increasingly untenable, and its believers increasingly silly. — NOS4A2

Who defines ideal moral standards? Initially God did nd we killed God. Now science proves facts but is ignorant as far as moral standards. So the next possibility is Man itself.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984

The movie explains how these forces that be are attempting to control the past which will be the attempt to create the future and the. supremacy of its enforced marxist one opinion through "might makes right". Are there enough people and institutions left in America to defend the value of freedom of thought and expression of ideas? My guess is that a free society must hit bottom before it can realize the error of its ways and strive to regain the value of freedom. Hitting bottom is not a pleasant perspective to look forward to.

Could you use your words to guide me like a marionette to this or that action?
— NOS4A2

He already has. — Isaac

No, NOS is a wily fucker. :razz:

I refuse to acknowledge the notion that “speech has consequences” beyond the immediate physical effects, for instance the movement of breath from the mouth or the application of ink to paper. Since no one but myself can control my motor cortex, I believe the activities you described are the consequence of other, more personal factors. But I can understand the folk psychology of the notion.

The problem with this notion, as I see it, is that if speech is to be blamed for political skirmishes or violence, it can be blamed for any and all opposite effects. If you and I hear the same speech, but you go out and riot while I go home and read a book, we remain ignorant to the real reasons why you did one thing and I did another. Free speech becomes the innocent victim.

I refuse to acknowledge the notion that “speech has consequences” beyond the immediate physical effects, for instance the movement of breath from the mouth or the application of ink to paper. Since no one but myself can control my motor cortex, I believe the activities you described are the consequence of other, more personal factors. But I can understand the folk psychology of the notion.

The problem with this notion, as I see it, is that if speech is to be blamed for political skirmishes or violence, it can be blamed for any and all opposite effects. If you and I hear the same speech, but you go out and riot while I go home and read a book, we remain ignorant to the real reasons why you did one thing and I did another. Free speech becomes the innocent victim. — NOS4A2

Should fraud be illegal? It's often only speech after all.

Since no one but myself can control my motor cortex, I believe the activities you described are the consequence of other, more personal factors. — NOS4A2

Personal factors are exploited in order to ultimately result in particular actions. It’s not folk psychology.

The issue with social media is that it has empowered a very small minority to have a very large voice, it's really got not much to do with larger society. Even though your OP is fearmongering, most of the responses to you just go the other way and pretend like there's fairness in the way Twitter mobs treat people, which is silly. It's not the state that's trying to silence you, it's random people but I don't think there's anything which can be done about that. People have a right to call you a racist homophobe and demand you be fired - free speech has to allow that and if your employer sacks you because thousands of people said they'd boycott the business or because it's bad publicity otherwise then that's their decision.

Do you have an intelligent solution for us to consider or are you just going to complain generally about an exaggerated concern? Also, how often does this happen?

I refuse to acknowledge the notion that “speech has consequences” beyond the immediate physical effects, for instance the movement of breath from the mouth or the application of ink to paper. Since no one but myself can control my motor cortex, I believe the activities you described are the consequence of other, more personal factors. But I can understand the folk psychology of the notion. — NOS4A2

You are taking an extreme position here, and of course you have company. It's a rare idea, indeed, that only one person holds it. A whole folk/pop-psychology school--holding that individuals are entirely responsible for their ideas, reactions, feelings, and so forth, and that no one can influence anyone else--agrees with you. You proclaim the sovereign individual.

We have to agree to disagree, because there is only a small patch of common ground. I hold that we are, in the end, social animals and are influenced by each other. You proclaim the sovereign individual.

↪Isaac


How? — NOS4A2

How is obvious - a simple causal chain from the sound of the words hitting your eardrum, their firing through various networks of neurons to the ones which caused you to type your answer. That's the easy and trivial bit.

What's far more interesting is your explanation for the opposite. If the words weren't (could never be) part of the causal chain - along with all other external influences - then whence the signal which caused you to type your response?

I'm only talking about rather boring neuroscience which can be be read about in any textbook, so I don't see much point in me expanding on it here.

You, however, have clearly uncovered nothing short of pure magic, the signals telling your body to type your response spontaneously came from nowhere - it's this new magic I'm sure we all want to hear about. What substance is this magical realm made from? How does it interact with our realm? Does it only affect humans or does it sometime cause rocks to do things spontaneously? How on earth did you arrive at this mystical wisdom (was it an ancient text buried in an Aztec tomb - I do hope so, those are always the best)? Do tell.

A free society, where free speech is plentiful, will see political skirmishes in the streets because speech has consequences. Plentiful free speech doesn't mean that all consequences have to be tolerated. — Bitter Crank

Precisely why we should prosecute on the basis of intent. I personally don't believe Trump incited an insurrection, but that's what he's charged with: not giving unwanted opinion but manufacturing violence. In the UK we have laws about specifically inciting violence. The intelligence community will intervene if you're planning a terrorist attack, even though planning is technically just speech.

Laws against inciting violence are useful, and the censorship aspect irrelevant. In principle, one could imagine instances where it is right to plan violence, such as in the French resistance, but then the law itself is irrelevant.

People only cast it as a free speech issue when it affects their side of some conflict. They are unlikely to champion the rights of Islamic terrorists discussing an imminent attack on US soil on free speech grounds, but will champion the rights of MAGA-hatted domestic terrorists doing exactly the same. It's not a position that needs to be taken seriously.

I refuse to acknowledge the notion that “speech has consequences” beyond the immediate physical effects, for instance the movement of breath from the mouth or the application of ink to paper. Since no one but myself can control my motor cortex, I believe the activities you described are the consequence of other, more personal factors. But I can understand the folk psychology of the notion. — NOS4A2

Not only stupid, but ignorant. Can you say rhetoric? The art of persuasion? And never mind Aristotle's measly Rhetoric when you can have Quintillian's whole bookshelf on the subject. And these just two of thousands. Every letter write, every poet, every person who attempts literature of any kind, in particular every speech writer. Every mother who calls her child. These just examples; in short every person who communicates. Btw, nos4, are you aware of music? Do you know what that is? As usual you are an insult to these forums. You just don't usually display this "level" of ignorance.

Outside of company time, it's no business of the company what a person says or does. — counterpunch

The thing is that it is the other way around already: People at large judge a company by its employees. If you know a guy who works for such and such company, and you don't like him, chances are you're going to hire some other company for some work you need done.

So it makes sense that a company's employees act in line with company policy 24/7 and that the company has some overview and control over it.

Well, it was text. I looked at the screen, I read the words, I interpreted the symbols, and I typed the response. How, in your neuroscientific view, is the word causing me to do any of this?

You repeat that the words are causing my response, telling my body to type, and in the same breath accuse me of magical thinking. But I’ve also seen a few posts in this thread which seem to be unable to cause a single response, not only from me but from others. Were these pixels, arranged as they were, lacking the causal force? Did they cause people not to respond? Did the “signals” travel down the wrong neurons?

So far all you’ve done is written about me in the passive voice and the words in the active one. I think it should be the other way about.

Not only stupid, but ignorant. Can you say rhetoric? The art of persuasion? And never mind Aristotle's measly Rhetoric when you can have Quintillian's whole bookshelf on the subject. And these just two of thousands. Every letter write, every poet, every person who attempts literature of any kind, in particular every speech writer. Every mother who calls her child. These just examples; in short every person who communicates. Btw, nos4, are you aware of music? Do you know what that is? As usual you are an insult to these forums. You just don't usually display this "level" of ignorance.

Then why won’t you persuade me, Tim? Surely you know some of these arts.

How, in your neuroscientific view, is the word causing me to do any of this? — NOS4A2

I just explained that. It's not complicated. The sound (or image) stimulates a neuron sufficiently for it to stimulate one to which it is proximate. At the end of that chain is the instruction to your muscles to type. What is it you're not understanding about that?

I’ve also seen a few posts in this thread which seem to be unable to cause a single response, not only from me but from others. Were these pixels, arranged as they were, lacking the causal force? — NOS4A2

Yes. Again, not seeing what's in the least bit difficult to understand here.

Did the “signals” travel down the wrong neurons? — NOS4A2

Yes. You have billions of them, trillions of possible paths just in a single cortex.

So far all you’ve done is written about me in the passive voice and the words in the active one. I think it should be the other way about. — NOS4A2

What you think should be the case is totally immaterial to what actually is the case.

What you think should be the case is totally immaterial to what actually is the case. — Isaac

And you're here to tell him what actually is the case?

The issue with social media is that it has empowered a very small minority to have a very large voice, it's really got not much to do with larger society. Even though your OP is fearmongering, most of the responses to you just go the other way and pretend like there's fairness in the way Twitter mobs treat people, which is silly. It's not the state that's trying to silence you, it's random people but I don't think there's anything which can be done about that. People have a right to call you a racist homophobe and demand you be fired - free speech has to allow that and if your employer sacks you because thousands of people said they'd boycott the business or because it's bad publicity otherwise then that's their decision.

Do you have an intelligent solution for us to consider or are you just going to complain generally about an exaggerated concern? Also, how often does this happen? — Judaka

What is your aim for yourself and for society in general? I believe in the rights as recorded in the Declaration of Independence and the freedoms that make these rights possible.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal rights and not established by Man. If people want these rights they will have the obligation to perform the voluntary obligations necessary to sustain these rights. Of course if people want the slavery of socialism or communism then all this is unnecessary. The state will decide your obligations and define your happiness. Simone Weil describes our situation:

The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations.

Do you and I as individuals further the right of free speech or do we believe in “might makes right” as does BLM and Antifa and get away with intimidation? If our aim is to further the ideology of statist slavery, then intimidation is the best. If our aim is a free society, then a person has the obligation to support free speech even if it opposes my beliefs. It boils down to our aim for ourselves and for society in general.

I just explained that. It's not complicated. The sound (or image) stimulates a neuron sufficiently for it to stimulate one to which it is proximate. At the end of that chain is the instruction to your muscles to type. What is it you're not understanding about that?

It’s not that I don’t understand it. I just think it’s kind of ridiculous because I am being treated as a passive object, the words acting upon me as if I was silly putty. I think it’s the other way about: I act upon the words.

All the activity you describe, from hearing a word on down to responding, is performed by and caused by me. Just as you chose your words and manifested them, it is I who chose to read them. It is I who learned the language. It is I who differentiated between your text and the general noise of other sense data. It is I who interprets the data and supplies the meaning to the symbols. It is I who formulates and delivers the response.

Stephen Hawking said that Philosophy is dead. — Nikolas

I don't know about that, but last time I checked, Stephen Hawking was certainly dead. Maybe philosophy had the last word after all.

It is I who interprets the data and supplies the meaning to the symbols. — NOS4A2

Not entirely, no. For a small and literally iconic example take the Apple logo. Did you give that symbol its meaning? Millions have been spent in attempting to control the meaning of this brand. When you see the logo do you think cheap unaesthetic or low quality? There's a chance that you do but there's a far better chance that you don't.

We're all conditioned beings and our conditioning can be hacked.

Am I to understand that your solution is to... demand that people behave themselves? BLM and Antifa are using free speech too, what do you suggest be done about it?

I suggest that whenever you hear that someone has been unfairly criticised for being politically incorrect or whatever, go write to that business or person showing your support. That's something you can do.

Hitting bottom is not a pleasant perspective to look forward to. — Nikolas

Mmmm.

I don't know about that, but last time I checked, Stephen Hawking was certainly dead. — Olivier5

Philosophy 1 -- Hawking 0

Am I to understand that your solution is to... demand that people behave themselves? BLM and Antifa are using free speech too, what do you suggest be done about it?

I suggest that whenever you hear that someone has been unfairly criticised for being politically incorrect or whatever, go write to that business or person showing your support. That's something you can do. — Judaka

NO. For a free society to sustain itself the majority must recognize and support the value of free speech and oppose a minority which would be against it. Obviously it isn't happening. Opposing free speech in schools, the media, political correctness etc. is instead rewarded. Since this is obviously true, a free society isn't wanted and willingly sacrificed for the security of imagined safety

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Liberty is dead. The idea of liberty is for an advanced society. America i not there yet. We have proven America no longer deserves liberty nor safety and prefers a form of statist slavery..

How about a little redneck advice in my very best redneck voice...?.

Don't worry about it.
They got the numbers.
But we got space.
We own this place.

...until ALL of it is taken away.

Those woke folks have every right to think and say whatever they want. Their opinions have nothing to do with anything or anybody but themselves. Right on! As long as they keep their hands to themselves...

...but that's just me ...I grew up feral.

Liberty is dead. The idea of liberty is for an advanced society. America is not there yet. We have proven America no longer deserves liberty nor safety and prefers a form of statist slavery.. — Nikolas

A lil som’em som’em from Eleanor:

Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.

Perhaps also a frightening prospect for those who fancy themselves as the arbiters of virtue, because no one welcomes the realization that they’re superfluous, or just plain silly.

Opposing free speech in schools, the media, political correctness etc. is instead rewarded. — Nikolas

If you care so much about what others expect of you, you will never be free. Rewards from society are not necessary to live well. Your own personal freedom to say whatever you want may not agree with other people's expectations that you're going to stick to "proper language", but then, don't you also expect things from others? And do you feel like you restrict their freedom when you expect something from them?

I refuse to acknowledge the notion that “speech has consequences” beyond the immediate physical effects, for instance the movement of breath from the mouth or the application of ink to paper. — NOS4A2

...not going to stick to that contract you signed, then.

If you were to put this doctrine into practice, I strongly suspect things would go badly for you. So I suspect it is the sort of thing said but not done.

Unless you are posting from a prison cell. Or an island.

Philosophy 1 -- Hawking 0 — Kenosha Kid

Hawking should have known that philosophy cannot die -- she's a goddess after all -- but that she can hide from her enemies alright.

Unless you are posting from a prison cell. Or an island. — Banno

Or here.