The argument against the sort of language that is being opposed it that it creates an environment in which the subjects of that language are less free to pursue their lives than they would be in the absence (or at least less pervasive use) of that language. That, for example, someone expressing racist views at a university has the effect of making those views seem more legitimate, which in turn encourages more open expression of those views in people's actions which in turn restricts the liberty of the subjects of those views. This either does happen or it doesn't. Whether it does or doesn't is an empirical matter. — Isaac

I don't see it that way. Firstly because I think free speech is a matter of principle, and cases in which it is at issue need to be judged on merit, on an ongoing basis. The individual circumstances of any particular case make it different from every other. Secondly, I don't expect ensuring free speech means abandoning hate speech legislation. Thirdly, I don't think it's possible to gather objective data on such issues.

If as you say, it's an empirical matter, explain how you would gather such data.

I think free speech is a matter of principle — counterpunch

So? What has what you think is a matter of principle got to do with the laws of the democracy in which you happen to live?

cases in which it is at issue need to be judged on merit, — counterpunch

I agree, yet every time I mention it you seem to think that their individual merits are unmeasurable and so I'm confused as to how you propose to do such judging. Oh yes, I forgot the solomonesque wisdom of what you personally reckon might be the case.

The individual circumstances of any particular case make it different from every other. — counterpunch

Again, I agree, yet you seem to be saying that we do not need any empirical data about the individual circumstances of each case, that you can simply judge them tout court.

I don't expect ensuring free speech means abandoning hate speech legislation. — counterpunch

Well it does - I mean literally hate speech legislation is a restriction of free speech for exactly the reasons universities are claiming exist to restrict the speech they're now restricting - ie the harm (the reduction in liberties) it causes the communities affected by it. If you agree with hate speech legislation then you agree on principle that speech which has the effect of causing such harms should not be 'free'. This means that your entire distinction hinges on the empirical matter of whether or not the speech concerned causes the harms claimed.

I don't think it's possible to gather objective data on such issues. — counterpunch

Then why do you support hate speech legislation? Maybe the speech thereby banned doesn't cause the harms claimed. If there's no way of gathering the data, how would we know?

If as you say, it's an empirical matter, explain how you would gather such data. — counterpunch

It's not that complicated - sociological research, interviews, questionnaires, measures of equality in segregated communities, historical analysis...there's tons of ways we can gather data. Maybe not very robust data, but a damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork.

If as you say, it's an empirical matter, explain how you would gather such data. — counterpunch

It's not that complicated - sociological research, interviews, questionnaires, measures of equality in segregated communities, historical analysis...there's tons of ways we can gather data. Maybe not very robust data, but a damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork. — Isaac

But it is complicated - and not just because sociological investigation is methodologically suspect in the very best of conditions. There would necessarily be an awareness that the data gathered would inform government policy on universities - with regard to freedom of speech, a fundamental human right that - institutionally marxist sociology departments are politically opposed to. The last thing post modernist, politically correct neo marxist left wing academia wants is free speech. They've dedicated the past 60 years to gradually closing it down, and that's who you want to conduct this research?

But it is complicated - and not just because sociological investigation is methodologically suspect in the very best of conditions. There would necessarily be an awareness that the data would seek to inform government policy on universities - with regard to freedom of speech, a fundamental human right that - institutionally marxist sociology departments are politically opposed to. The last thing post modernist, politically correct left wing academia want is free speech. They've dedicated the past 60 years to gradually closing it down, and that's who you want to conduct this research? — counterpunch

damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork. — Isaac

damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork. — Isaac

Then we've arrived at last at the conclusion of this discussion. If all you've got left in your teeny tiny knacker sack is restatement of an already over-used insult, I take it you're spent.

Meanwhile, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls remain robust! And free speech remains a human right as defined by the UNDHR. It doesn't reflect well on you that you do not embrace these rights, or respect these freedoms. People died for these freedoms. People die for want of these freedoms and you would carelessly dispense with them because someone might be offended. I find you offensive.

My guess is that a lot of colleges are still fairly placid places. There are outstanding exceptions of course, where everyone is on somebody else's thin ice. — Bitter Crank

Even those places that where people "are on thin ice" likely are fairly placid places, I would think.

Let's remember that in the US there are 4000 colleges and universities and these protests, cancellations or student activity likely has happened in a fraction of universities and colleges. And all takes is some tweet or a tiny group of "activist" students to protest and the video to go viral, and everybody is commenting about it. This creates a false impression of the mood in the country. Yet on the other hand, some places like Portland have indeed have had their share of "activism" under the radar with the last protests happening just few days ago with a small group of demonstrators braking windows and quarreling with the police. Hence even the cold weather hasn't gotten them (30 to 50 people) of the streets.

Huh? In what way are we unable to define free speech as a human right? There's a massive literature on the subject. Acquaint yourself with it and you'll have answers to your questions. — counterpunch

In what way? You've provided an example of a way of doing so, haven't you? And I even went to the trouble of asking questions which, had you responded to them, might have assisted in disclosing what you think that "right" entails.

But I understand it's difficult to do, though you apparently don't. The consideration of questions which arise in considering possible situations can tell us something of the beliefs of those asked.

Let's consider the human right of free speech (let's call it "the HROFS" for convenience) as you seem to think it exists, specifically with reference to the halls of the academy. We can at least thereby determine what questions you decline to answer. And, for good or ill, I know J.S. Mill well enough to know he wrote far more than On Liberty and that consistency wasn't one of his strong points.

Would a student's refusal to attend a class taught by a professor because he/she/whatever is a Marxist (or Objectivist--by which I mean a follower of the L. Ron Hubbard of philosophy, Ayn Rand--or Libertarian, etc.) be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a professor's insistence on teaching the Marxist (or Objectivist or Libertarian) view of a particular subject be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a student or professor's refusal to attend a speech by the proponent of a particular ideology be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a student or professor's non-violent protest of a speech being given a person on campus (you know, "singing songs and a-carrying signs") be an exercise of the HROFS? Would it be a violation of the speaker's HROFS?

Would a university's refusal to invite a person to speak because it disapproves of what that person may be expected to say be a violation of that person's HROFS?

If I give you the wrong directions to the pub, and you go that way, my words have caused you to do so. It's not that hard.

Your just skip a variety of preceding causes to the event you described—hearing, understanding, trusting etc.

Appealing to ridicule to disguise a shit argument. Not that hard.

Your just skip a variety of preceding causes to the event you described—hearing, understanding, trusting etc. — NOS4A2

Do you really not know the difference between proximate and ultimate causes, between sufficient and necessary causes?

No, I could care less about jargon. The only thing you or your words have caused is the movement of some air and some sound waves.

No, I could care less about jargon. — NOS4A2

Alright then. Without the 'jargon'. In order to make tea I must boil the kettle, add the tea leaves and add the milk. Each of those things cause tea to be made. Without one of them there's no tea. But with only one of them, there's still no tea. All three are required for tea. If we say then that boiling water is not a cause of tea, we must say that too of the other elements (since none have primacy over the others). Thus we reach the absurd conclusion that tea has no cause. Since that option is absurd, we label them all causes, and divide them in those which are necessary (without which there'd be no tea - all of them in my example), and those which are sufficient (the group which, when all present will cause tea).

It's flat out wrong to say "The only thing you or your words have caused is the movement of some air and some sound waves." Had I not written my previous post, you would not have posted your reply, so my previous post was a necessary cause, without it your response absolutely would not have happened.

If you want to go about using words Humpty-Dumpty like to mean whatever you want them to mean, then you crack on, but it's stupid to post on a public forum and not adhere to the public meanings of the words you use.

Well said.

I appreciate the analogy. But who or what is making the tea? The milk? The tea-leaves? The kettle? Not a single one of these, or any combination of these ingredients, can cause tea.

It’s true; I would not respond to something that is not there, but I would also not respond had I not looked at my screen, taken the time to read, and chosen to respond. I could do the exact opposite: not respond. This is because your post isn’t the cause of me responding anymore than it is the cause of no one else responding. The causal chain of your language ended wherever you have left your words, and there they will sit until some agent comes across and chooses what to do with them.

Leaves don’t cause us to rake them. Rocks don’t cause us to pick them up. Your post doesn’t cause me to respond to it, and so on.

In what way? You've provided an example of a way of doing so, haven't you? And I even went to the trouble of asking questions which, had you responded to them, might have assisted in disclosing what you think that "right" entails. — Ciceronianus the White

So you wanted answers to those questions? That wasn't just a demonstration that there are a lot of questions? You must really enjoy my writing, because if I'd tried to answer those question I'd still be there now!

But I understand it's difficult to do, though you apparently don't. The consideration of questions which arise in considering possible situations can tell us something of the beliefs of those asked. — Ciceronianus the White

It's utterly easy to do until you try to do it; that's the point.

A: Is that true?
B: Yes, it's true!
C: What do you mean by true?
All: Oh fuck off!

Look here - another long list of questions. Am I on trial? I don't think I'm on trial. Might I be on trial anyway? They are not your proposals. So you are almost certainly not on trial.

Would a student's refusal to attend a class taught by a professor because he/she/whatever is a Marxist (or Objectivist--by which I mean a follower of the L. Ron Hubbard of philosophy, Ayn Rand--or Libertarian, etc.) be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a professor's insistence on teaching the Marxist (or Objectivist or Libertarian) view of a particular subject be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a student or professor's refusal to attend a speech by the proponent of a particular ideology be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a student or professor's non-violent protest of a speech being given a person on campus (you know, "singing songs and a-carrying signs") be an exercise of the HROFS? Would it be a violation of the speaker's HROFS?

Would a university's refusal to invite a person to speak because it disapproves of what that person may be expected to say be a violation of that person's HROFS? — Ciceronianus the White

I plead the fifth!

Is that a HROFS? Discuss!

Instead, why don't we discuss the need for these measures. What is going on in universities that government has to step in to ensure free speech?

Always read between the lines with these changes.

A "champion" (non plural) is a singular corruptible, bribable centralized point of power to determine what free speech is. The goal is irrelevant.

Also, never look at what the proposition fs something is from its implied purpose, look at who or what decides that it is the 'champion' and why. Would Adolf Hitler make a great champion selector?

Untangle what enforcement and agenda is behind it and you quickly see what its essence is - centralization of free speech enforcement.

That it should be enforced is scary, that is should be enforced centrally is scarier.

The point of free speech is that nobody enforces if its free or not. It's just free. Your lungs don't decide whether they can breathe or not, they just breathe. If you need to enforce your lungs breathing, then they are not breathing freely.

who or what is making the tea? The milk? The tea-leaves? The kettle? Not a single one of these, or any combination of these ingredients, can cause tea. — NOS4A2

No, they are not sufficient causes, they are necessary causes. Another necessary cause is a human tea-maker, or a machine. It doesn't make them not causes, otherwise nothing could ever be caused.

It’s true; I would not respond to something that is not there — NOS4A2

Exactly. So, in terms of speech legislation, if I wanted to stop you responding, then removing one of the necessary causes (my post) would do that. Of course, in the real world we must usually talk about minimising chances rather than outright prevention because the number of sufficient causes is very large.

This is because your post isn’t the cause of me responding anymore than it is the cause of no one else responding. The causal chain of your language ended wherever you have left your words, and there they will sit until some agent comes across and chooses what to do with them. — NOS4A2

You've just ignored what I previously said rather than counter it. That is not the public meaning of the term 'cause'. You'll not find such a meaning in any dictionary. It is not necessary for a cause to be sufficient in order for it to be a cause. My post was not sufficient to result in your reply, but - this is the important bit - nothing is. So if we reserve the word 'cause' for only those factors which are sufficient we have to accept the absurd conclusion that nothing has any causes.

Leaves are a cause of us raking them. They're just not a sufficient cause, they are a necessary one.

Again, the importance for free speech legislation - remove the leaves and you remove the raking, because they are a necessary cause.

Instead, why don't we discuss the need for these measures. What is going on in universities that government has to step in to ensure free speech? — counterpunch

You see, whether the government has to step in, and whether it should step in, and what it should do about it if it has to or should step in, all depend on what the "right to free speech" means. But you're clearly unable or unwilling to address that.

So, just to be clear - you are in favour of free speech, but not in favour of government measures to protect free speech?

Would I be correct in assuming you're an American with an innate suspicion of federal government?

In the UK free speech is not a Constitutional right; it's not an automatic assumption in the background. Here, there's an increasingly stultifying stranglehold on free speech being imposed under the auspices of political correctness - that implies students are being indoctrinated with an anti-western, anti capitalist, anti white education - that's immune from cross examination. That's why these measures are necessary.

No, they are not sufficient causes, they are necessary causes. Another necessary cause is a human tea-maker, or a machine. It doesn't make them not causes, otherwise nothing could ever be caused.

I suppose flour is the necessary cause of bread, and hops the necessary cause of beer. I’m not going to use such language. No matter what word you use to modify “cause”, and no matter how easily we can drift into the passive voice when we describe tea-making, none of these ingredients can gather and mix themselves with other “necessary causes” to create the end product.

Exactly. So, in terms of speech legislation, if I wanted to stop you responding, then removing one of the necessary causes (my post) would do that. Of course, in the real world we must usually talk about minimising chances rather than outright prevention because the number of sufficient causes is very large.

If you wanted to stop me responding you would have to stop yourself from responding. In both cases, the words did not cause any of these actions. These are the decisions of an agent, the only being with the capacity to act in such a manner.

You've just ignored what I previously said rather than counter it. That is not the public meaning of the term 'cause'. You'll not find such a meaning in any dictionary. It is not necessary for a cause to be sufficient in order for it to be a cause. My post was not sufficient to result in your reply, but - this is the important bit - nothing is. So if we reserve the word 'cause' for only those factors which are sufficient we have to accept the absurd conclusion that nothing has any causes.

Leaves are a cause of us raking them. They're just not a sufficient cause, they are a necessary one.

Again I don’t care about the jargon or arguments by gibberish. We can quibble about definitions of “cause” and variations of “cause” forever. But I still feel that you’re raising the ingredients of tea into the cause of tea by sheer act of rhetoric, nothing more.

We do not have to accept that nothing has any cause unless we extirpate the causal agent from your examples, as you have done above. The one thing that gathers the ingredients, boils the water, and combines the ingredients to form tea hardly makes an appearance in your analogy, or is relegated to the same species of cause as boiling water.

Leaves are not the cause of us raking them just as they are not the cause of us refusing to rake them. The very beginning of the raking process, starts in only one place and in one object.

Again, the importance for free speech legislation - remove the leaves and you remove the raking, because they are a necessary cause.

But how can you remove the leaves if not by raking? Cut down the trees? I suggest we teach people to not fear leaves so that we need not resort to such measures.

So, just to be clear - you are in favour of free speech, but not in favour of government measures to protect free speech? — counterpunch

That's exactly what I meant, yes. It's an oxymoronic position to endorse government to protect free speech. Free speech is derived from free will. I do not need the government to regulate when I can go to the bathroom. Or what I can say. But again, I look at the agenda and the origin, not the claim.

Would I be correct in assuming you're an American with an innate suspicion of federal government? — counterpunch

I don't plan on discarding the anonymity this site offers me. I value free speech, and principles such as whistleblowing which have free speech at their core.

That's why these measures are necessary. — counterpunch

If it's the case that you can confidently state that you believe such measures are necessary, then I wouldn't be convinced that you were genuinely willing to discuss the matter. Your view appears to be matured and you are seeking emotional support. No offence.

In my opinion, such measures are useful only to those who seek power. My mind is as decided as yours appears to be. I would consider myself a strong free speech advocate.

Do you accept that it's not necessarily polite to encourage your level of free speech rights in the UK as a guide for how other countries should view such rights?

You see, whether the government has to step in, and whether it should step in, and what it should do about it if it has to or should step in, all depend on what the "right to free speech" means. But you're clearly unable or unwilling to address that. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think an exhaustive definition of free speech is possible in any reasonable time frame; or necessary in that a common sense definition will do for most practical purposes. If you want to go open a thread entitled 'What is free speech anyway?' I'd be glad to contribute, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread, I'd hoped would be about why it's necessary for government to step in and protect free speech in universities.

I want to give an example. Recently, statues of slave owners were torn down by outraged teens - signalling their virtue. One man, Colston - was born in 1636, which - someone might have pointed out were free speech a protected right, was about 200 years before slavery was ended.

Slavery, at this point in time - had existed forever. It was how the world worked. Yet, because of political correctness - it's impossible to say, hang on a minuet, slavery existed all around the world since the dawn of time, it was perfectly normal in Colston's era, and btw - it was Western civilisation that developed the philosophy, politics and economics based on freedom, (including freedom of speech) that ultimately allowed slavery to be ended.

But because of political correctness - and the aggressive, twitter mob, de-platforming tactics used, that was impossible, and so the perception persists that slavery was some particular cruelty white people invented because they're racist. And it's just not true.

When you consider those dynamics, the need for intervention becomes clear. We cannot have the proliferation of a dogma that's not open to question - or else!

Leaves are a cause of us raking them. They're just not a sufficient cause, they are a necessary one. — Isaac

You are conflating condition with cause; a common mistake.

That's exactly what I meant, yes. It's an oxymoronic position to endorse government to protect free speech. Free speech is derived from free will. I do not need the government to regulate when I can go to the bathroom. Or what I can say. But again, I look at the agenda and the origin, not the claim. — Paul S

I think the problem here is that you do need government to protect you from the consequences of exercising free speech - against an extremely aggressive politically correct left. Take what happened to JK Rowling recently. She made some fairly innocuous remark on twitter, gently mocking politically correct verbiage - and was attacked in a hugely disproportionate and vicious manner.

That's the problem. The politically correct dogma is not open to question, and that's unhealthy in all sorts of ways. It's a bandwagon you are required to jump on, and so a very unstable blind force - not unlike the witch hunt hysteria in the middle ages. Which is ironic because... Harry Potter!

I don't plan on discarding the anonymity this site offers me. I value free speech, and principles such as whistleblowing which have free speech at their core. — Paul S

Fair enough. I wasn't asking for your date of birth, social security number and your inside leg measurement, but... whatever dude!

If it's the case that you can confidently state that you believe such measures are necessary, then I wouldn't be convinced that you were genuinely willing to discuss the matter. Your view appears to be matured and you are seeking emotional support. No offence. — Paul S

You have committed the gravest of all possible crimes - you've...offended someone! Oh dear me no! Relax. It takes a lot more than that to offend me. I can confidently state that something needs to be done about the run-away train of political correctness, and yes, I am willing to discuss that.

Do you accept that it's not necessarily polite to encourage your level of free speech rights in the UK as a guide for how other countries should view such rights? — Paul S

Difficult question. On the one hand, I believe in free speech as a universal right. On the other hand, it's not my culture. I suppose it resolves itself in the fact that people in distant lands almost certainly don't care what I think, and as such - I'm quite free to disapprove of regimes that persecute citizens for saying the wrong thing. After all, that's why I disapprove of political correctness.

I find it much more useful to address circumstances than abstracts, especially when it comes to considering the appropriateness of laws and government action.

I want to give an example. Recently, statues of slave owners were torn down by outraged teens - signalling their virtue. One man, Colston - was born in 1636, which - someone might have pointed out were free speech a protected right, was about 200 years before slavery was ended. — counterpunch

If the statute was one of Edward Colson, he was deputy governor of the English Royal African Company, which held a monopoly on England's African trade slave.

I suppose the erection of statues could be considered a form of free speech. If so, I think tearing them down could be as well.

Here in the U.S., the First Amendment applies only to laws and government action. So, teens toppling statutes wouldn't be considered a violation of the legal right of free speech. It would be considered vandalism or destruction of property, however. Government agents arresting or penalizing the teens for doing so could raise First Amendment issues, I think, which may be why there seems to be little effort to punish those who destroy or deface certain statutes.

Now, clearly there could be and are people who think destroying or defacing statutes of heroes of the Confederacy or other statues is improper, and even violates the right of free speech. I, personally, wouldn't weep if there were no such statutes. But there is no legal right of free speech that's violated in the U.S. in those circumstances. Thus, the importance of defining "the right of free speech." In the U.S., the government has no obligation to protect speech by some from others, except to the extent other law is violated (e.g., laws prohibiting disorderly conduct).

Much as people may object to the use of boycotts or protests by other people to restrict speech, this isn't a legal issue in the U.S. generally unless it becomes violent, or some law other than the First Amendment is violated. Otherwise, people may debate whether such conduct is or is not proper or moral, but law isn't a consideration. So unless the law changes very significantly, the government here won't become involved in claims of violation of the non-legal right of free speech. Nor will people who aren't associated with government be subject to claims they've violated the legal right of free speech. The government may be subject to claims it has violated the legal right itself, as may state owned/operated universities, however.

It seems that in the U.K. they're considering making or have made speech a right protected by the government; in other words, government would enforce the right of free speech at least in some circumstances, and even require it be "promoted." That would be interesting, and I think very difficult to do.

If the statute was one of Edward Colson, he was deputy governor of the English Royal African Company, which held a monopoly on England's African trade slave. — Ciceronianus the White

Colson. He was born in 1636; 200 years before slavery was ended. Sure, we look back on the past in horror - but it is not a few hundred years of European history. It is the entire history of human civilisation, all around the world - right back to Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt and beyond.

The implication is slavery hasn't been defeated by our enlightened moral attitudes. It is endemic to the human condition, and only held in check by rights and freedoms. Yet, for the sake of political correctness, that fact is disguised to suggest that slavery equates to racism. Political correctness makes it impossible to dispute - for fear of being branded racist, and at the same time as the left are constructing this authoritarian dogma in opposition to free speech, they are using climate change as an anti-capitalist battering ram.

Do you not see how dangerous all that is - given that slavery is an ever present threat, only held in check by the philosophies, politics and economics of freedom?

I suppose flour is the necessary cause of bread, and hops the necessary cause of beer. I’m not going to use such language. No matter what word you use to modify “cause”, and no matter how easily we can drift into the passive voice when we describe tea-making, none of these ingredients can gather and mix themselves with other “necessary causes” to create the end product. — NOS4A2

Then how do you suppose bread and beer are made? I've already said that human mixer is one of the necessary causes. Put all those necessary causes together and you get bread an beer. Take any one away and you don't. No amount of enthusiastic human mixer is going to make bread without flour, are they? So why does the human get primacy, or some special label of their own?

If you wanted to stop me responding you would have to stop yourself from responding. In both cases, the words did not cause any of these actions. These are the decisions of an agent, the only being with the capacity to act in such a manner. — NOS4A2

So what? No one is talking about sufficient causes and I've already explained why we can't remove the term 'cause' from all factors which are not alone sufficient causes. The words are insufficient to make me respond. So is my will to respond (without the words I'd have nothing to respond to). I need both the will to respond, and the words to respond to. Two necessary causes. On what grounds are you selecting one of them for special labelling and dismissing the other as barely even relevant?

The one thing that gathers the ingredients, boils the water, and combines the ingredients to form tea hardly makes an appearance in your analogy, or is relegated to the same species of cause as boiling water. — NOS4A2

That one thing might be a teas-maid, a robot. Does it get special treatment then? Or is it just humans. Do animals count? What's the boundary for this special labelling you want to apply? Are you going to tell me gravity does not cause the stone to fall now because gravity has no will? Was it God did it?

I suggest we teach people to not fear leaves so that we need not resort to such measures. — NOS4A2

Why. You've two options remove the speech which is one necessary cause of the harm (without the speech there's be no harm). Or remove the response which is another necessary cause of the harm (without the response there'd be no harm). You've not given any reasons at all for your choice of which necessary cause to remove.

Change the terms all you like, the fact remains that these two factors result in the harm and that removing either one will remove the harm, so it's insufficient to simply say that your preference for the removal of one over the other is because the other is not something you'd call a 'cause'. What does your idiosyncratic labelling system have to do with it?

You are conflating condition with cause; a common mistake. — Janus

Really? How?

As usual, the right are victim role-playing snowflakes who peddle fake news and they should all get fucked. Whole debate is a charade and anyone who takes it seriously is a clown and probably some kind of post-modern neofascist or somesuch.

As usual, the right are victim role-playing snowflakes who peddle fake news and they should all get fucked. Whole debate is a charade and anyone who takes it seriously is a clown and probably some kind of post-modern neofascist or somesuch. — StreetlightX

Glad I'm a centrist; and also glad that you acknowledge "victim role-playing snow-flakes peddling fake news" - is a thing!

You people... — counterpunch

Gotta love that one!

:kiss: