Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society(bigthink.com)
bigthink.com
Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society
https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-speech-violence/
479 comments
> the law has generally done very good job of reminding us that this tends to be a VERY NARROW possibility, i.e. the harm has to be very specific and directed and measurable.
Here in the US, yes. In the rest of the world (like, EU) they aren't very specific.
Here in the US, yes. In the rest of the world (like, EU) they aren't very specific.
The one good thing about America.
There are other good things, but it is certainly a deficiency in Europe. Some criminalize insults pretty heavily. While the thought behind that might be decent, I don't believe it to work in the future.
For example in Germany the first amendment protects dignity. An ideal law nobody can really fully adhere to. It works because there is a societal consensus about its meaning. Nothing the law can really determine. I believe this consensus will not really survive the 21st century. Perspectives will be too different. Dignity in religious communities means something entirely different than in a secular society, and even in that values will diverge more and more.
A lot of these laws are ancient and many were intended to protect monarchy from vulgar peasants, so I am a bit surprised "progressive" forces seem to have found their love for it.
In the interest of civil liberties, these laws would need to be changed at some point. They basically allow authority to selectively punish anyone under almost any pretense.
For example in Germany the first amendment protects dignity. An ideal law nobody can really fully adhere to. It works because there is a societal consensus about its meaning. Nothing the law can really determine. I believe this consensus will not really survive the 21st century. Perspectives will be too different. Dignity in religious communities means something entirely different than in a secular society, and even in that values will diverge more and more.
A lot of these laws are ancient and many were intended to protect monarchy from vulgar peasants, so I am a bit surprised "progressive" forces seem to have found their love for it.
In the interest of civil liberties, these laws would need to be changed at some point. They basically allow authority to selectively punish anyone under almost any pretense.
150 dB speech could melt someone’s face.
Charge for the melting, not the method used to achieve the melting.
Even doing regular speaking can be an issue: https://www.cleveland19.com/2023/02/10/ohio-attorney-general...
Violates noise level laws so that’s covered.
Whether such laws are commonly enforced … well we know from modified motorcycles that they’re not.
Whether such laws are commonly enforced … well we know from modified motorcycles that they’re not.
Did you see the face before? Could it be self defense?
And yet people don't get how narrow the Brandenburg test is:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
> The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
> The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
> AND
> The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
[snip]
> The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”
> In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
And because I also see this doctrine over-applied online:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
> In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." There, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.
> In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.
The page I linked to links to multiple law review articles on the subject:
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=28...
Suffice it to say: If someone online claims a speech act isn't protected due to the fighting words exemption, no it isn't.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
> The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
> The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
> AND
> The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
[snip]
> The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”
> In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
And because I also see this doctrine over-applied online:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
> In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." There, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.
> In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.
The page I linked to links to multiple law review articles on the subject:
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=28...
Suffice it to say: If someone online claims a speech act isn't protected due to the fighting words exemption, no it isn't.
Hello, I was just born yesterday and now I'm shocked to discover every single person I've met so far has hold some view I dislike.
Theoretically, how much outrage do I need to manufacture to get the legal system to ignore the Brandenburg test and prosecute today's flavor of thought villain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OV4VaNW4FU
Theoretically, how much outrage do I need to manufacture to get the legal system to ignore the Brandenburg test and prosecute today's flavor of thought villain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OV4VaNW4FU
Say the word "trans" in a sentence and put an "x" on an otherwise common adjective and no other effort is required.
I expect the above will get flagged but it's correctly pointing out that we've effectively brute forced some loopholes that allow normal protections on speech and thought to be bypassed. The fact that you "can't" say certain things ends up shifting the game to claiming your opponent has said one of those certain things.
Edit: to wit, the parent post claim in ridiculous action: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811787
Edit 2: and just to clarify my point, once these loopholes get found, people jump on them and aggressively exploit them. Look around this thread for the kinds of rhetoric people that oppose free speech are using. What would they have subbed in 15 or 50 years ago?
Edit: to wit, the parent post claim in ridiculous action: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811787
Edit 2: and just to clarify my point, once these loopholes get found, people jump on them and aggressively exploit them. Look around this thread for the kinds of rhetoric people that oppose free speech are using. What would they have subbed in 15 or 50 years ago?
> The fact that you "can't" say certain things
what fact is that? who enforces the "can't" ?
what fact is that? who enforces the "can't" ?
exactly. the poster you are responding to is pretending that the boundaries of polite conversation have always been the same as the boundaries of legal speech when that's obviously not the case and has never been.
According to the Twitter files, Silicon Valley enforces it at the behest of the federal government.
Not clear why you're getting downvoted, but this is the exact right answer. The Twitter files was proof that the Federal government put pressure on Twitter to censor specific viewpoints.
What was the pressure?
There was often no (but sometimes) pressure, Twitter was aligned enough with most of the requests it seemed.
Regardless, does that remove the offense?
Regardless, does that remove the offense?
The offense being requests to remove revenge porn?
Somehow, I don't think that the material covered by the so-called "Twitter files", or the material not covered by them (e.g. Trump asking directly for deletion), is what the GP was referring to.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
[deleted]
Yep.
"Kill x people" is fine and protected. "Kill x people at y date at z mall" is not.
"Kill x people" is fine and protected. "Kill x people at y date at z mall" is not.
Does that pass the "likely to produce" requirement?
Hess v Indiana did that.
Note:
>Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct.
>The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In contrast to such an indefinite future time, the Court emphasized the word imminent in the "imminent lawless action" test of Brandenburg. Because the evidence did not show that Hess' speech was intended and likely to produce "imminent disorder", the state could not punish Hess' speech.[3][4]
Note:
>Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct.
>The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In contrast to such an indefinite future time, the Court emphasized the word imminent in the "imminent lawless action" test of Brandenburg. Because the evidence did not show that Hess' speech was intended and likely to produce "imminent disorder", the state could not punish Hess' speech.[3][4]
While that shows the supreme court ruled in his favor because of a lack of time specificity, that doesn't mean that the court would necessarily rule against him had he specified a time. Speculatively there might be more involved in the assessment.
As is oft repeated, the law you refer to only applies to state action. The notion we could easily apply this to private individuals quickly breaks down.
Employee X gets fired for publicly stating that their employers products are trash, said employee sues, nothing about what they said was illegal.
Employee X gets fired for publicly stating that their employers products are trash, said employee sues, nothing about what they said was illegal.
From the companies perspective, the harm done by an employee talking trash about products is very similar to the harm done by an employee talking about unions or employee conditions.
And the law generally recognize this. It is not protected to intentionally harm the company if the intention is purely to cause harm. It is protected if the intent is to warn the public about a harmful product (Whistleblowing), or to protect fellow employees for harm. When those cases do end up in court, what judges and juries will focus on is on intent as the deciding factor once harm has been agreed/established.
And the law generally recognize this. It is not protected to intentionally harm the company if the intention is purely to cause harm. It is protected if the intent is to warn the public about a harmful product (Whistleblowing), or to protect fellow employees for harm. When those cases do end up in court, what judges and juries will focus on is on intent as the deciding factor once harm has been agreed/established.
I guess I don’t really see what your point is then. If you’re going to the point where we are getting into civil disputes, then how isn’t “employee became the center of controversy on social media and caused damage to company X’s reputation” not covered under this rubric? Because that is essentially what “cancel culture” is.
Those oft repeaters should talk to a real lawyer? Libel, slander, the occasional tortious interference with contract?
A real lawyer would know about Lloyd corp v tanner and be able to contextualize the fact that most of this controversy exists because it is legal to limit speech in the ways we are debating all over the internet.
People saying “we should limit it to what the law says” don’t make a ton of sense… because the law says that Twitter limiting speech is perfectly acceptable.
The first amendment doesn’t even apply in civil cases. Everything you listed aren’t exceptions to free speech, they are positive constructions as to the kinds of speech that you can make a civil claim of injury over. As such, they are not exhaustive.
People saying “we should limit it to what the law says” don’t make a ton of sense… because the law says that Twitter limiting speech is perfectly acceptable.
The first amendment doesn’t even apply in civil cases. Everything you listed aren’t exceptions to free speech, they are positive constructions as to the kinds of speech that you can make a civil claim of injury over. As such, they are not exhaustive.
Real lawyers don't necessarily know every case citation. Real law students and googlers might. You get a general sense of how things work.
I guess what I should have said was that they’d have a sense of the operative case law in the area they were speaking on. I don’t think that is too high of an expectation. That case wasn’t something I had to google and I’m not in school currently.
If that's their area of the law. Being a lawyer isn't about memorizing everything. It's about knowing how things work more broadly. Writing memos about the current law is for law students and junior associates unless it's your narrow focus area.
Most people don't realize this and they also don't realize that equal opportunity laws also apply to white, male, christians, etc.
Yes that is why the civil rights law in California was almost repealed last year, they wanted to make it legal to discriminate against white people. Such moronic thinking does not consider the future consequences. Law by teenagers.
"Almost" is not true. Did someone drop a bill in the legislature? Maybe. Did it even make it out of committee? Where are you getting this? "Almost" is doing a lot of work.
If your source was AM radio or Fox News don't bother to reply. Leginfo only, please.
More than a year ago, but perhaps referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16 ?
Nope, that's a repeal of our affirmative action ban WHICH FAILED in 2020, during the alleged peak of the woke mob. I bet Fox doesn't mention that affirmative action is illegal in California.
That is not repealing our civil rights law, the FEHA, or amending it to remove protections for white people, who are, by the way, only a plurality here. Even if we had, the federal law, Title VII, still protects everyone. The question isn't who you are, it's whether you were discriminated against on that basis.
Personally, I am really glad the rest of the country hates us and thinks we're shit so they don't come here, but it gets annoying when people just make stuff up. No, the place is far from perfect, but it's nothing like what people imagine. Even in San Francisco, they recalled the prosecutor who wouldn't do anything and San Francisco is probably the most extreme. People think that must mean every city around it is the same. Other than Berkeley, sometimes, they just aren't. In fact most of us go, thank god I don't live in San Francisco, which, by the way isn't the second biggest city in the state. San Jose has more people than San Francisco and so does San Diego. San Diego is much, much more purple. It's almost like 40m people are different.
They sure seem happy to take our tax dollars though.
That is not repealing our civil rights law, the FEHA, or amending it to remove protections for white people, who are, by the way, only a plurality here. Even if we had, the federal law, Title VII, still protects everyone. The question isn't who you are, it's whether you were discriminated against on that basis.
Personally, I am really glad the rest of the country hates us and thinks we're shit so they don't come here, but it gets annoying when people just make stuff up. No, the place is far from perfect, but it's nothing like what people imagine. Even in San Francisco, they recalled the prosecutor who wouldn't do anything and San Francisco is probably the most extreme. People think that must mean every city around it is the same. Other than Berkeley, sometimes, they just aren't. In fact most of us go, thank god I don't live in San Francisco, which, by the way isn't the second biggest city in the state. San Jose has more people than San Francisco and so does San Diego. San Diego is much, much more purple. It's almost like 40m people are different.
They sure seem happy to take our tax dollars though.
Arguably, a ban on racial discrimination (or "affirmative action") is a civil rights law, so almost repealing such a ban would be almost repealing civil rights law.
Arguably being the key word, then yes. But the voters rejected it. Arguably or not, we weren't talking about affirmative action, we were talking about what people call the civil rights law, which is the FEHA, which is the state analog of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So, it's arguable if you don't know what you're talking about, and then it just becomes "annoying-reply-guy"-ly.
The laws are almost never enforced that way and almost always flouted in that direction, so the common misperception is understandable.
This hyperbolic nonsense to say laws are almost never enforced that way.
There are real biases and Injustice, but it doesn't a disservice do any reasonable debate to make such exaggerating claims
There are real biases and Injustice, but it doesn't a disservice do any reasonable debate to make such exaggerating claims
It's not an exaggeration. My city government has funded a "Black Excellence Center" which will use public funds to build a racially-exclusive art gallery/business incubator/cultural space for black people, who represent ~6% of my city's population and are not excluded from any of the similar places which already exist:
https://www.theblackcenter.org/
This is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it in court and no one will. Other examples abound, such as racial discrimination in Ivy League admissions (now challenged in court, but for its impact on Asians mainly) and observed differences across race in admitted med students' MCAT scores.
Teddy Roosevelt once said that, "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism" and, "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." Well, here we are. Separate schools, separate standards, separate funding, separate public investment, except for the one largest demographic group... all driving my country into further conflict and disunity.
https://www.theblackcenter.org/
This is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it in court and no one will. Other examples abound, such as racial discrimination in Ivy League admissions (now challenged in court, but for its impact on Asians mainly) and observed differences across race in admitted med students' MCAT scores.
Teddy Roosevelt once said that, "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism" and, "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." Well, here we are. Separate schools, separate standards, separate funding, separate public investment, except for the one largest demographic group... all driving my country into further conflict and disunity.
This particular type of grievance is only possible when you fail or refuse to comprehend the long, brutal, and massive privilege that “one largest demographic” took for itself for centuries. “Separate schools, separate standards, separate funding, separate public investment” indeed.
Not saying what you're saying is wrong, but there are lawsuits every day for discriminating against what people think are the majority in employment and housing. I'm not sure why my post was downvoted for pointing out a fact about the law and that most people don't realize it.
But you're doubling down not just on that people aren't aware of it but that it's a dead letter. That's wrong. You're confusing the government's spending power with discrimination in employment.
But you're doubling down not just on that people aren't aware of it but that it's a dead letter. That's wrong. You're confusing the government's spending power with discrimination in employment.
I take your point. I thought you were speaking about "the law' in general, and not specifically commenting equal opportunity laws
If you convince someone not to have kids, is that harmful?
Harm and causality are not the sole factors that the law turns on. I can convince people to do all types of terrible things, but that does not make it illegal
how can convincing (not coercing) be harmful? What's the definition of harm
Woman convinced her boyfriend to kill himself and was convicted:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-found-g...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-found-g...
She was convicted because she breached her duty of care after he informed her that he attempted suicide, and she told him to get back in the car and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it. The judge was spot in noting that by having the conversations with him that she did, at the time, she had a duty of care that she did not uphold. Your characterization of her liability is completely inapposite what the court found, it is misleading, and it is being done so to serve your own political beliefs regarding speech.
Where did you get that? The court decision does not mention "duty of care" (which is a well established term for situations that have nothing in common with this one). She created a different kind of duty for herself, not by any of the preceding messages but rather by the final "get back in" message.
I was just going off memory. You are right that it was that specific message and not the previous messages.
interesting. What are my beliefs regarding freedom of speech? I attempted to provide an example of what the OP spoke of, might have been wrong. My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence. I appreciate you telling me what I believe and my political beliefs though.
When did I say what your political beliefs were? It's obvious to anyone reading your post, that you shared what you did to further your beliefs. Sheesh! And go figure, you're just shy of an absolutist. Who would have guessed that? (me! I would have!)
Lol, I'm guessing all of your posts are to hamper you political beliefs?
Sheesh indeed my friend, sheesh indeed.
Sheesh indeed my friend, sheesh indeed.
So because your post was obviously made in an effort to expound upon the validity of your beliefs, it must be the case that I only ever do that? I don't follow. I wasn't projecting, I was just using basic reading comprehension skills to understand why someone would write what they did. It's a totally normal skill: https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/test-format/reading-co...
I honestly have no idea what you just said :)
I look forward to your insulting response.
Terminating a millions-years-old family line is pretty harsh imo.
Is it? Nature does it all the time. Maybe it's a sentimentality thing.
lol, what?
If I killed someone, I can't be like "Whats the problem? Nature kills people all the time. Why are you so sentimental?"
If I killed someone, I can't be like "Whats the problem? Nature kills people all the time. Why are you so sentimental?"
You can convince someone to go shoot up a school, good luck arguing convincing is not coercing in court.
It really depends on what you did to convince them. See the top level post.
The law does not only care about causality. It is also cares free speech, reasonable interpretation, and comparative responsibility.
I could craft and publish an argument School shootings are in fact a positive good a we should have more of them. I am legally in the clear, even If someone finds my argument convincing and goes and shoots up a school because of it.
The law does not only care about causality. It is also cares free speech, reasonable interpretation, and comparative responsibility.
I could craft and publish an argument School shootings are in fact a positive good a we should have more of them. I am legally in the clear, even If someone finds my argument convincing and goes and shoots up a school because of it.
"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is. That can vary wildly. There are laws on the books in which the statute specifies "reasonable" and a judge has determined that it's an absolute liability offense because determining reasonableness is too hard and would frustrate the legislatures intent. (Even though this conflicts with other precedential opinion which states you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirit).
In short, "reasonable" means nothing until the people in power tell you what it means.
In short, "reasonable" means nothing until the people in power tell you what it means.
I was speaking about what the law philosophically cares about - how it was crafted.
When it comes to this example, it is a lot more clear. I can write a book on why you should shoot up schools and it would be protected. Reasonable does not come in to that part of the question.
When it comes to this example, it is a lot more clear. I can write a book on why you should shoot up schools and it would be protected. Reasonable does not come in to that part of the question.
Sure, I'm just saying in practice the ideals that the laws were crafted on tend to go out the window - to the point that the law (through opinion) contradicts the written statute.
>"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is."
Not really. The boundaries of "reasonable" are... wait for... it reasonableness.
I.e. if a jury or a judge isn't reasonable, then an appeals court can overturn it. A judge or jury is not given free reign to determine anything to be reasonable.
Not really. The boundaries of "reasonable" are... wait for... it reasonableness.
I.e. if a jury or a judge isn't reasonable, then an appeals court can overturn it. A judge or jury is not given free reign to determine anything to be reasonable.
The court won't need to get that far, convincing itself falls under conspiracy without having to conflate it with coercion.
That strongly depends on how you convince them. If you one-on-one talk someone into shooting up a school, that's conspiracy. If you tell a large audience that teachers and children are a scourge upon society that must be eliminated and count on some small fraction to be unhinged enough to connect the dots, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Even the private conversation does not raise to the level of conspiracy without a plan.
One action is a crime, the other (in)action isn't.
Convincing someone to commit suicide (not a criminal act per se anymore) is still a crime in many jurisdictions.
Not having children is a life decision that's harmful to the society the same way suicide is harmful to the society.
Childfree groups should be treated as suicide cults.
Not having children is a life decision that's harmful to the society the same way suicide is harmful to the society.
Childfree groups should be treated as suicide cults.
it's not coercing though
password11(1)
Did you guys know it is illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America". It is illegal it is a federal offence, it's one of the only sentences that your not allowed to say.
Now it was okay for me to say because I was telling you it was illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America", because I wasn't saying it, I was telling you it was illegal to say it, like a public service.
But it is not illegal to say "with a mortar launcher", because that's it's own sentence. It's an incomplete sentence but it may have nothing to do with the sentence before that. So that's perfectly fine, perfectly legal.
It's incredibly illegal, extremely illegal to go on the internet and say something like "The best place to fire a mortar launcher at the White House would be from the roof of the Rockerfeller Hewitt building, because of minimal security and you'd have a clear line of sight to the President's bedroom." That's insanely illegal, ridiculously illegal, recklessly illegal, horribly illegal, extremely felonious, super illegal because they will come to your house in the middle of the night and they will lock you up. Extremely against the law
One thing that is technically legal to say is "We have a group that meets Friday's at midnight under the Brooklyn bridge and the password is sic semper tyranus"
Now it was okay for me to say because I was telling you it was illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America", because I wasn't saying it, I was telling you it was illegal to say it, like a public service.
But it is not illegal to say "with a mortar launcher", because that's it's own sentence. It's an incomplete sentence but it may have nothing to do with the sentence before that. So that's perfectly fine, perfectly legal.
It's incredibly illegal, extremely illegal to go on the internet and say something like "The best place to fire a mortar launcher at the White House would be from the roof of the Rockerfeller Hewitt building, because of minimal security and you'd have a clear line of sight to the President's bedroom." That's insanely illegal, ridiculously illegal, recklessly illegal, horribly illegal, extremely felonious, super illegal because they will come to your house in the middle of the night and they will lock you up. Extremely against the law
One thing that is technically legal to say is "We have a group that meets Friday's at midnight under the Brooklyn bridge and the password is sic semper tyranus"
A true classic. RIP Trevor Moore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3_kUaYFJA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3_kUaYFJA
[deleted]
> few liberal-minded commentators seemed eager to say Rushdie was entirely without fault
This does not match my recollection. As I recall things, Rushdie was vigorously defended by the left, which at the time quite liked the idea of freedom of speech. At least in the UK, can't speak for anywhere else.
This does not match my recollection. As I recall things, Rushdie was vigorously defended by the left, which at the time quite liked the idea of freedom of speech. At least in the UK, can't speak for anywhere else.
I was too young to remember the surrounding events, but I do know that Rushdie's close friend Christopher Hitchens has spoken about being turned away from his leftist roots because of the lack of support for Rushdie from many on the left.
My recollection, which could be faulty, was that people sided with Rushdie but there was a "but he probably shouldn't be so provocative" attached to it. So that tracks with the "entirely without fault" bit, as I remember it.
However, that's based on my memory from the "buzz" around the book and the fatwa when I was a high school senior. I could easily be misremembering or maybe took too strong an impression from a specific op-ed or talk show. Finding copies of coverage as it was happening is a little tricky.
However, that's based on my memory from the "buzz" around the book and the fatwa when I was a high school senior. I could easily be misremembering or maybe took too strong an impression from a specific op-ed or talk show. Finding copies of coverage as it was happening is a little tricky.
That isn't my recollection at all, can you provide an example of a mainstream publication or politician attaching "he shouldn't be so provactive" to their support. And if you can't, why would you go on believing it?
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1994/03/273-3/132...
"Salman Rushdie’s rights as an author are absolute and ought to be inalienable. A free society does not ban books. . . . But it is preposterous to pretend that the first principle governing the publication of Satanic Verses is the last word on the subject. . . . Mr Rushdie is entitled to abuse the religion in which he was reared and must be protected against those who want to intimidate him into silence. [Guess the conjunction] But the idea that we all have a duty to applaud his calculated assault is a novel interpretation of the liberal obligation."
"Salman Rushdie’s rights as an author are absolute and ought to be inalienable. A free society does not ban books. . . . But it is preposterous to pretend that the first principle governing the publication of Satanic Verses is the last word on the subject. . . . Mr Rushdie is entitled to abuse the religion in which he was reared and must be protected against those who want to intimidate him into silence. [Guess the conjunction] But the idea that we all have a duty to applaud his calculated assault is a novel interpretation of the liberal obligation."
I think that is a pretty balanced take and falls short of "he shouldn't be so provactive".
It simply says he shouldn't be applauded for being provacative. Being a victim of injustice is not itself a virtue.
It simply says he shouldn't be applauded for being provacative. Being a victim of injustice is not itself a virtue.
Yanking a couple of outlier authors and commentators out as representatives of common opinion is disingenuous as hell.
Society-wide we've also got a huge problem with victim-blaming when it comes to crime, and we are only just starting to make in-roads on it. We've just done another round on this with "somehow NATO is causing Russia to invade Ukraine in a campaign of murder, rape and destruction".
Society-wide we've also got a huge problem with victim-blaming when it comes to crime, and we are only just starting to make in-roads on it. We've just done another round on this with "somehow NATO is causing Russia to invade Ukraine in a campaign of murder, rape and destruction".
So an unequivocal assertion of his absolute right to make those statements and obligation of a free society to defend him, coupled with the idea that liberals shouldn't feel obliged to form a consensus opinion on the actual book...
I'm sure other commentators came up with much more heavily caveated and reluctant defences of the Satanic Verses than that one, but that one seems fully in agreement with most ideals of free speech tbh, actually more so than the "Speech is violence? Not..." article author's insinuation that criticising the book or acknowledging it was offensive was incompatible with liberalism...
I'm sure other commentators came up with much more heavily caveated and reluctant defences of the Satanic Verses than that one, but that one seems fully in agreement with most ideals of free speech tbh, actually more so than the "Speech is violence? Not..." article author's insinuation that criticising the book or acknowledging it was offensive was incompatible with liberalism...
As I believe I said in the original comment - finding the coverage at this point is tricky. That was from the late 80s, and digging up the original sources[1] is far more research than I'm willing to do. I don't see you demanding evidence in the other direction.
If you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free. I was quite open that this is based on my memory of events and I didn't assert it as cold hard fact. If I'm shown evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to believe differently. I look forward to your extensive research.
[1] Some of which might be available online, much of which in the form of talk-show commentary and TV news, etc., is unlikely to be and may not even be preserved.
If you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free. I was quite open that this is based on my memory of events and I didn't assert it as cold hard fact. If I'm shown evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to believe differently. I look forward to your extensive research.
[1] Some of which might be available online, much of which in the form of talk-show commentary and TV news, etc., is unlikely to be and may not even be preserved.
If there is a group that is likely to be violent at that sort of provocation, you very much want to provoke them so they can be found out and somehow extinguished.
You can't extinguish an ideology, and someone who has been murdered is already murdered even if you do.
By your insane logic, we should put kids out on the street by themselves to catch child predators.
Sometimes the safety of the threatened party is more important than finding out who wants to harm them.
By your insane logic, we should put kids out on the street by themselves to catch child predators.
Sometimes the safety of the threatened party is more important than finding out who wants to harm them.
Yes you can, that requires some balls (such as not allowing fucking Hizb ut-Tahrir run schools). You'd think it violates the free speech principle, but smart people have that covered by the paradox of tolerance.
Also we put fake kids online and young-looking cops to lure predators all the time for that exact reason.
As long as there are people wishing to "behead those who offend Muhammad", there should be an offensive Muhammad cartoon on every street light.
Also we put fake kids online and young-looking cops to lure predators all the time for that exact reason.
As long as there are people wishing to "behead those who offend Muhammad", there should be an offensive Muhammad cartoon on every street light.
We absolutely should do that, if we can do that without actually harming children. Literally this is why we do not do that: because it would be wrong to harm children.
There should also be an international institute of holy text destruction. Build a big armored building where once a day, mass-market copies of all holy text's in common circulation in the world are unceremoniously set on fire and live-streamed.
Because if you can't deal with that without trying to kill someone, you have no place in modern society (not to mention that contextually, burning a holy text - and a flag for that matter - is considered the correct way to dispose of it).
There should also be an international institute of holy text destruction. Build a big armored building where once a day, mass-market copies of all holy text's in common circulation in the world are unceremoniously set on fire and live-streamed.
Because if you can't deal with that without trying to kill someone, you have no place in modern society (not to mention that contextually, burning a holy text - and a flag for that matter - is considered the correct way to dispose of it).
I would say he was quite vigorously defended by liberals. Since the 1970s there pretty much hasn't been such a thing as the left, especially in Rushdie's hayday of the 80s-00s. If there was, I doubt it would've spent much time worrying about the fate of a bourgeoisie fantasist.
Nothing against Rushdie btw. I loved the Satanic Verses. But institutional journalism (which provides the fundamental model most people use to understand Anglo politics) has conflated the terms left and liberal. And while I respect the drift of language as natural and intrinsic to culture, this misplacement has created a silly situation in which hypocracy, action and in-action are misattributed. Because these are two groups (overlapping in some cases) but distinct in a fundamental way.
In fact, I would say articles such as this are entirely flawed in that they don't grasp this distinction because they take institutional journalism's political narrative way past its power to describe reality.
Edit: BTW, this affects conservatives and "the Right" as well. Most of the people that rise to the top of the Rupblican and Tory parties are effectively "liberal". Most would not abolish civil liberties, equality before the law, etc. Just about everyone elected to government in both the UK and the US in all parties sit on a spectrum of liberalism. Mostly they just disagree about what year the government needed to stop doing things to create a "liberal" society.
Nothing against Rushdie btw. I loved the Satanic Verses. But institutional journalism (which provides the fundamental model most people use to understand Anglo politics) has conflated the terms left and liberal. And while I respect the drift of language as natural and intrinsic to culture, this misplacement has created a silly situation in which hypocracy, action and in-action are misattributed. Because these are two groups (overlapping in some cases) but distinct in a fundamental way.
In fact, I would say articles such as this are entirely flawed in that they don't grasp this distinction because they take institutional journalism's political narrative way past its power to describe reality.
Edit: BTW, this affects conservatives and "the Right" as well. Most of the people that rise to the top of the Rupblican and Tory parties are effectively "liberal". Most would not abolish civil liberties, equality before the law, etc. Just about everyone elected to government in both the UK and the US in all parties sit on a spectrum of liberalism. Mostly they just disagree about what year the government needed to stop doing things to create a "liberal" society.
the only thing I remember was then President Bush calling it a bad book while defending its freedom of speech.
But yes he hardly qualifies as liberal-minded.
But yes he hardly qualifies as liberal-minded.
Wtf since when do presidents give book reviews?
No idea, but Obama has pretty good spotify playlists he keeps sharing updates on[0], and I feel like book reviews aren't that different.
0. https://pitchfork.com/news/barack-obama-shares-2022-summer-p...
0. https://pitchfork.com/news/barack-obama-shares-2022-summer-p...
He probably read it to see what all the fuss was about.
I did. Its not a good book. Rushdie is a fucking boring writer.
I did. Its not a good book. Rushdie is a fucking boring writer.
Haroun and the Sea of Stories is aimed at children, but fantastic. Can't comment on the others because I haven't read them.
I agree actually, hated it. But I'm pretty sure Bush meant bad as in immoral. I don't think he really had the concept of bad as a literary quality.
There was kind of a moment around 9/11 & invasion of Iraq&Afghanistan when the "left" (a term I hate, but I'll put aside that hate for now) pivoted on how it treated Islam, Islamic countries & immigrants and speech which was inflammatory around Islam. And in that context I think there was on the whole some sympathy on "the left" for Rushdie before, and less so after. (But like, I also think you can't make any broad generalizations about "the left" which in the US especially is some sort of stupid umbrella term which collapses neo-liberal centrists in with radical socialists, as if they have much in common at all.)
Prior to 9/11 the feminist movement and the left generally was fairly openly hostile about Islamic fundamentalism (and probably Islam generally), the Iranian regime, in the same way as it was around Christian fundamentalism, etc.
e.g. I vaguely remember a feminist convention of some kind, I think in Toronto, late 90s? when a pro-Iranian women's group showed up and had a table, and it caused a big stir and a far left socialist feminist group of some sort went over and vandalized their table and tried to evict them, etc.
But after the American/Republican reaction to 9/11 and the wave of brutal Islamaphobia ("clash of civilization" crap), acts of violence against immigrant Arab populations, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. many people on the left took principled positions on this that I think were on the whole more nuanced and were sympathetic to most Muslims in the context of the times; to try to denounce the imperialism colonialism, Christian nationalism, etc. that was flooding the culture.
I think burning a Koran or whatever in a post-9/11 era is a lot different from pre/9-11. At least in the first 10 years of the millenium doing something like that is a clear and explicit racist and bigoted act. Rushdie, tho, that's more complicated.
I think this has been a hard line to straddle. And many since took far more un-nuanced positions; idiots like George Galloway have taken their so-called anti-imperialism from this time and turned it into an outright pro-Putin, pro-Assad, reactionary politics which is in no way left wing or socialist, but ... at some point originated from there?
It's worth pointing out that post the post-9/11 point Hitchens himself pivoted from "left" (with a good critique of liberalism) to neo-conservative hawk. And he did so in a pretty ugly way.
Prior to 9/11 the feminist movement and the left generally was fairly openly hostile about Islamic fundamentalism (and probably Islam generally), the Iranian regime, in the same way as it was around Christian fundamentalism, etc.
e.g. I vaguely remember a feminist convention of some kind, I think in Toronto, late 90s? when a pro-Iranian women's group showed up and had a table, and it caused a big stir and a far left socialist feminist group of some sort went over and vandalized their table and tried to evict them, etc.
But after the American/Republican reaction to 9/11 and the wave of brutal Islamaphobia ("clash of civilization" crap), acts of violence against immigrant Arab populations, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. many people on the left took principled positions on this that I think were on the whole more nuanced and were sympathetic to most Muslims in the context of the times; to try to denounce the imperialism colonialism, Christian nationalism, etc. that was flooding the culture.
I think burning a Koran or whatever in a post-9/11 era is a lot different from pre/9-11. At least in the first 10 years of the millenium doing something like that is a clear and explicit racist and bigoted act. Rushdie, tho, that's more complicated.
I think this has been a hard line to straddle. And many since took far more un-nuanced positions; idiots like George Galloway have taken their so-called anti-imperialism from this time and turned it into an outright pro-Putin, pro-Assad, reactionary politics which is in no way left wing or socialist, but ... at some point originated from there?
It's worth pointing out that post the post-9/11 point Hitchens himself pivoted from "left" (with a good critique of liberalism) to neo-conservative hawk. And he did so in a pretty ugly way.
[deleted]
Hitchens is still a liberal whether he is neoconservative or not because neoconservatism is a form of liberalism.
Its just "liberalism in one country", or "great power liberalism" i.e. in the US context the constitution doesn't apply to our enemies, which regardless of whether or not it is moral or wise in modern times, it is certainly an accurate reading of the text and intent of the constitution.
Neoconservatism for instance is almost always framed as defending liberal societies against illiberal societies, as an ideology its adherents hold liberalism in very high regard. The common arguments against neoconservatism are that they hold liberalism in too high of regard/violently high regard, and of course that you cannot be truly liberal if you are illiberal in fighting illiberalism. I still remember that Poppins quote being used by neocons to justify ugly wars, before it became popular with young Democrats during the Trump years.
Its just "liberalism in one country", or "great power liberalism" i.e. in the US context the constitution doesn't apply to our enemies, which regardless of whether or not it is moral or wise in modern times, it is certainly an accurate reading of the text and intent of the constitution.
Neoconservatism for instance is almost always framed as defending liberal societies against illiberal societies, as an ideology its adherents hold liberalism in very high regard. The common arguments against neoconservatism are that they hold liberalism in too high of regard/violently high regard, and of course that you cannot be truly liberal if you are illiberal in fighting illiberalism. I still remember that Poppins quote being used by neocons to justify ugly wars, before it became popular with young Democrats during the Trump years.
Before his neo-con conversion, Hitchens was explicitly some kind of social democrat or socialist, but not "liberal" in the US sense in that he routinely viciously criticized American liberals for their hypocrisy and for their pro-capital, pro-imperialist positions.
Jacobin had a reasonably decent article about this recently. https://jacobin.com/2022/09/christopher-hitchens-essays-left...
But yes I understand you're meaning liberal in the European/classical sense more than the American sense. US politics are wacked.
In any case, it's all hypocrisy. Conservative or liberal alike in the US and other western countries will all mostly fold in behind oppressive governments and very illiberal policies the moment their nation state and established financial order is threatened. We got a taste of that after 9/11, but we will likely see far worse in the future.
Jacobin had a reasonably decent article about this recently. https://jacobin.com/2022/09/christopher-hitchens-essays-left...
But yes I understand you're meaning liberal in the European/classical sense more than the American sense. US politics are wacked.
In any case, it's all hypocrisy. Conservative or liberal alike in the US and other western countries will all mostly fold in behind oppressive governments and very illiberal policies the moment their nation state and established financial order is threatened. We got a taste of that after 9/11, but we will likely see far worse in the future.
[deleted]
Sigh, every single time this comes up, people gloss over the part of freedom of speech that involves free association.
I’m free to say, “i hate <thing>”, and you’re free to refuse to associate with me as a result of that. It’s so simple. The government can’t, but you can.
As long as we all agree with that, then yeah freedom of speech is great, you just don’t get to stop applying it when you feel satisfied.
I’m free to say, “i hate <thing>”, and you’re free to refuse to associate with me as a result of that. It’s so simple. The government can’t, but you can.
As long as we all agree with that, then yeah freedom of speech is great, you just don’t get to stop applying it when you feel satisfied.
This argument always comes up too and you end up with certain people trying to force others to bake cakes a certain way. The whole idea of “protected classes” spits in the face of free speech.
I think free speech is a noble goal but can only really exist when we don’t live in a zero sum world. Until then:
> "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less." Alice responded to Humpty Dumpty, "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things?" Humpty Dumpty retorted: "The question is, which is to be master? That's all."
I think free speech is a noble goal but can only really exist when we don’t live in a zero sum world. Until then:
> "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less." Alice responded to Humpty Dumpty, "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things?" Humpty Dumpty retorted: "The question is, which is to be master? That's all."
Protected classes are a whole different thing, about how what you are isn’t something someone can evaluate you by.
There are so many “exceptions” to free speech, but acting like it’s all or nothing seems silly.
There are so many “exceptions” to free speech, but acting like it’s all or nothing seems silly.
The cake thing isn't about speech but public accomodations.
No it wasn’t. The issue was a custom made cake. The court ruled that the cake constituted an artistic expression (i.e. speech) on the part of the baker and they couldn’t be compelled to produce speech they disagreed with. If they just wanted a premade cake there would have been no issue.
Suppose at some point gay marriage is overturned, and some conservative group goes to a gay baker and commissions a cake saying "Hooray no more gay marriage! God is good!". Should they be compelled to bake that cake since they can't discriminate on the basis of religion?
You might disagree with that logic, but the ruling had to do with free speech, not public accommodations. Commissioning a custom work is not a public accommodation.
Suppose at some point gay marriage is overturned, and some conservative group goes to a gay baker and commissions a cake saying "Hooray no more gay marriage! God is good!". Should they be compelled to bake that cake since they can't discriminate on the basis of religion?
You might disagree with that logic, but the ruling had to do with free speech, not public accommodations. Commissioning a custom work is not a public accommodation.
It's scary how many people still parrot this line, which is 100% incorrect.
The baker was happy to sell them a cake. They had many cakes in the store that they could have bought.
The baker did not want to be compelled to create a custom cake (which he considered his artistic expression), to depict something he didn't agree with.
Imagine forcing an Islamic baker to write "Mohammad was a dirty pedophile" on a cake. Same thing.
The baker was happy to sell them a cake. They had many cakes in the store that they could have bought.
The baker did not want to be compelled to create a custom cake (which he considered his artistic expression), to depict something he didn't agree with.
Imagine forcing an Islamic baker to write "Mohammad was a dirty pedophile" on a cake. Same thing.
[deleted]
Exactly, no one is barging into private homes and forcing people to bake cakes for strangers. It’s about what you’re required to do if you’re open for business to the public.
Hate to have to bring up the obvious fact that free association hasn't existed since the 1960s in practice, and in certain ways much longer. I think this is almost certainly a good thing, but it's disingenuous to pretend that free association is something that we practice in the US. It simply isn't the current law and it probably shouldn't be.
It 100% exists, that’s what “cancel culture” actually is.
People also forget that freedom of expression isn't a license to go spreading harmful material that hurts people or undermines the values of democracy itself.
>Guarantee of rights and freedoms – section 1
> >1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
>...
>The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography.
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-righ...
>Guarantee of rights and freedoms – section 1
> >1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
>...
>The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography.
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-righ...
[deleted]
I suppose you’d be in favor of the McCarthy era Hollywood blacklist of suspected Communists, then?
The thing is, people on the far left and the far right DON’T want a liberal society. They want authoritarianism. They want control to suppress their adversaries.
You should read about leftist ideologies before making sweeping statements like this.
In the context of the US, everything I’ve seen suggests the right seeks authoritarianism more than the left does, doing things like getting books they don’t agree with banned, working to eliminate the votes of those not aligned with them, and weakening the barrier between church and state.
I'm not sure why you've been downvoted. The right is actively forcing books out of libraries in Florida and deciding that trans people shouldn't exist in many states. It's not like they're going to stop with that. This notion that the left is authoritarian is, frankly, projection.
You're not paying much attention to current events are you. You have a massive blind spot.
May I recommend you check out ground.news and use the bias checker to see what you're missing out on?
May I recommend you check out ground.news and use the bias checker to see what you're missing out on?
What did they say that's inaccurate and betrays they have a massive blind spot?
[deleted]
kneebonian(5)
The idea that we can have value-free laws instituted by impartial institutions is a fantasy. By its very nature politics is about rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
If the state - any state - regards you as deplorable, then it is totally irrelevant that some piece of paper somewhere might claim you are entitled to some rights. In practice this won't matter. The state will crush you, and the mob will cheer.
If the state - any state - regards you as deplorable, then it is totally irrelevant that some piece of paper somewhere might claim you are entitled to some rights. In practice this won't matter. The state will crush you, and the mob will cheer.
There is no true scotsman. Doesn't mean we can't have truth
That's irrelevant.
The fact is that we don't have neutral institutions. Even theoretically it would be extremely unlikely, and in practice it won't happen, chiefly because it would involve people in the in-group making comittiments to deplorable people in the out-group.
This might be approximately possible in a united cohesive high-trust society... but that bond of kinship simply doesn't exist anywhere in the West today
The fact is that we don't have neutral institutions. Even theoretically it would be extremely unlikely, and in practice it won't happen, chiefly because it would involve people in the in-group making comittiments to deplorable people in the out-group.
This might be approximately possible in a united cohesive high-trust society... but that bond of kinship simply doesn't exist anywhere in the West today
Journalists thought the same while feeling decently smart. They were neither smart nor produced articles worth reading in the end.
Anyone can strive to objectivity. Even if you can never reach it, the quality between someone who tries and someone who gives up is tremendous.
Anyone can strive to objectivity. Even if you can never reach it, the quality between someone who tries and someone who gives up is tremendous.
I remember the Idea Channel on YouTube had a video about violence. He started by quoting an artist saying something to the effect that putting paint to canvas was a violent act. The host went on to define violence as the taking away of agency. The rest of the video was mostly him arguing that physical violence is as easy to define as you might think and that ideas and speech can in fact be violent.
My reaction was that even if at the margin physical violence isn’t as easy to pin down as you imagine, I don’t understand making the term violence so broad that it loses its meaning. If everything is violent then nothing is.
My reaction was that even if at the margin physical violence isn’t as easy to pin down as you imagine, I don’t understand making the term violence so broad that it loses its meaning. If everything is violent then nothing is.
Amazing how trendy redefining words has become.
Definitions are constantly in flux. It's the reason the dictionary has to be updated. See the evolving definition of "literal" for instance or how "gay" has changed over time.
"To be sure, that doesn’t mean that deliberately offending people for its own sake is morally acceptable, or that people should be entitled to use speech to incite violence, harass, or threaten."
The difficulty is knowing what the intent was. Usually there are ways of "non-violent" communication. But it seems a lot of it is subjective.
By far it seems the most restrictive places are primary and secondary schools.
The difficulty is knowing what the intent was. Usually there are ways of "non-violent" communication. But it seems a lot of it is subjective.
By far it seems the most restrictive places are primary and secondary schools.
> The difficulty is knowing what the intent was.
It's not a coincidence that the postmodern thoughts that underpin a lot of this bullshit simply does away with intent, declaring it to be completely useless, and saying that the only thing that can be used to judge a message is how it affected the recipient.
Combine that with "words are violence", and you can manufacture physical abuse out of thin air.
It's really not the way forward for progressivism.
It's not a coincidence that the postmodern thoughts that underpin a lot of this bullshit simply does away with intent, declaring it to be completely useless, and saying that the only thing that can be used to judge a message is how it affected the recipient.
Combine that with "words are violence", and you can manufacture physical abuse out of thin air.
It's really not the way forward for progressivism.
Postmodernism absolutely does not deny intent. In fact, motivation behind texts/speech (as well as interpretation by readers/hearers) is such an important part of it that you can't really do postmodern analysis without accounting for motives.
The closest thing I can imagine for any kind of defense of your statement is that postmodernism will not let the declared or conscious intent of the speaker absolutely constrain a text. The logical distinctions between "not absolutely constraining" and "declaring it to be completely useless" should be clear. And the idea that people don't always declare their intent accurately should also be uncontroversial.
Really, postmodernism is essentially very big elaboration on the principles underlying Sinclair's observation "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
The closest thing I can imagine for any kind of defense of your statement is that postmodernism will not let the declared or conscious intent of the speaker absolutely constrain a text. The logical distinctions between "not absolutely constraining" and "declaring it to be completely useless" should be clear. And the idea that people don't always declare their intent accurately should also be uncontroversial.
Really, postmodernism is essentially very big elaboration on the principles underlying Sinclair's observation "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
More like postmodernism throws away objectivity. Which In practice often leads to baseless assumptions about intent.
> It's not a coincidence that the postmodern thoughts that underpin a lot of this bullshit simply does away with intent
Please make the connection between the disregard of intent and any rigorous definition of "post-moderism". Genuinely I don't see it.
I think the degradation of intent is more at the hands of those who have used it as a shield than anyone else. We've seen entire regions of the world thrown into chaos without consequence. Why, because the responsible parties didn't intend the chaos. At a certain point it gets a little thin.
What's imporant here is scale. Yeah, if you say something that rubs someone the wrong way, they should be able to have a conversation with you about your intentions and weigh those in their judgement. But what if it keeps happening. How long does someone else need to value your intent? 10 times? 100 times? Forever?
And of course when we get to things that affect people's lives on a much more material basis, maybe its good that we stop counting intent for so much. Maybe what we need is for decision makers to get a little more cautios because they will actually feel some consequences if they really screw up a lot of people's lives.
Please make the connection between the disregard of intent and any rigorous definition of "post-moderism". Genuinely I don't see it.
I think the degradation of intent is more at the hands of those who have used it as a shield than anyone else. We've seen entire regions of the world thrown into chaos without consequence. Why, because the responsible parties didn't intend the chaos. At a certain point it gets a little thin.
What's imporant here is scale. Yeah, if you say something that rubs someone the wrong way, they should be able to have a conversation with you about your intentions and weigh those in their judgement. But what if it keeps happening. How long does someone else need to value your intent? 10 times? 100 times? Forever?
And of course when we get to things that affect people's lives on a much more material basis, maybe its good that we stop counting intent for so much. Maybe what we need is for decision makers to get a little more cautios because they will actually feel some consequences if they really screw up a lot of people's lives.
The guy who says things were "just a joke" when he see's the frown of disapproval...but he never apologizes. And he also doesn't stop doing it. It's "just a joke" every time.
Perfect explanation of how "intentions" can come not to matter because we all know and hate this type of personal interaction. Well done.
I never associated Hilary Putnam with postmodernism, but I suppose he could have been affected by something in the air while writing The Meaning of 'Meaning'.[1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam#Semantic_externa...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam#Semantic_externa...
Completely ignorant use of the word "Postmodern" for 1000, Alex
People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence.
I've always held that position firmly. The trouble is, people are turning out to be a lot more programmable than I thought they (we) were. You could almost say that we're becoming more like machines at the same time that machines are becoming more like us. To the extent that's true, the part of the old saying that goes "... but words will never hurt me" can be seen as less valid.
I've always held that position firmly. The trouble is, people are turning out to be a lot more programmable than I thought they (we) were. You could almost say that we're becoming more like machines at the same time that machines are becoming more like us. To the extent that's true, the part of the old saying that goes "... but words will never hurt me" can be seen as less valid.
I don't know if this is true all the time. I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior. I think knowingly trying to trigger someone into an eating disorder relapse or coercing someone into suicide are heinous things that fall into violence. I think there is a line where speech can be violent or said with the intent to harm someone the same as a punch is.
Reprehensible? Disgusting? Vile? Yes, definitely. Violent? No, not at all.
Is hitting someone who is trying to hurt a loved to try to get them to stop violent? Yes, 100%. Is it morally justified, even good? Again yes (IMO).
I don't understand this need to try to redefine words. While language certainly evolves, this sort of redefinition just feels different to me somehow.
Is hitting someone who is trying to hurt a loved to try to get them to stop violent? Yes, 100%. Is it morally justified, even good? Again yes (IMO).
I don't understand this need to try to redefine words. While language certainly evolves, this sort of redefinition just feels different to me somehow.
Those would be intentional (a differentiation the article makes) threats. These fall under terroristic threats. They are not violent themself, but they are threats of violence which are not legal.
The poster I'm responding to disagrees with the differentiation of the article. I'm trying to affirm the differentiation with examples.
I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior
Compared to the actual act of rape? No. That kind of thinking just devalues the victim.
That said, specific threats aren't normally examples of protected speech. Extreme cases make bad law.
Compared to the actual act of rape? No. That kind of thinking just devalues the victim.
That said, specific threats aren't normally examples of protected speech. Extreme cases make bad law.
Compared to the actual act of rape? No. That kind of thinking just devalues the victim.
Numerous rape victims have objected to subsequent threats of additional rape, and would probably not take kindly to your inference that they're somehow devaluing themselves. You commented above that you think many participants in this debate lack experience of physical violence, and to be frank I am inclined to wonder the same of you in this instance.
Numerous rape victims have objected to subsequent threats of additional rape, and would probably not take kindly to your inference that they're somehow devaluing themselves. You commented above that you think many participants in this debate lack experience of physical violence, and to be frank I am inclined to wonder the same of you in this instance.
I also agree extreme cases make bad law. That's why I'm disagreeing with the extreme that there are no exceptions to the notion of speech not being violent.
Things can be bad without being violent. I don't understand this widespread push to try and erase the difference between non-violent bad things and violent bad things.
I think we have to be careful not to put words in each others' mouths here. To be clear, I am not saying that specific, credible threats of violence should be treated as "speech" in the First Amendment sense.
In my view, the status quo, where most speech is fair game until it rises to the level of coercive threats, is about right.
In my view, the status quo, where most speech is fair game until it rises to the level of coercive threats, is about right.
Violent - adjective - using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Definitions of words matter.
Definitions of words matter.
> I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior.
This is correct, also because such speech is quite often a precursor to actual violence. View it as more than a thing in isolation, without consequence.
In a political context, violent rhetoric about a particular group of people is predictably followed by actual violence towards members of that group. Hate speech is very much a part of hate crimes. They're not separable.
This is correct, also because such speech is quite often a precursor to actual violence. View it as more than a thing in isolation, without consequence.
In a political context, violent rhetoric about a particular group of people is predictably followed by actual violence towards members of that group. Hate speech is very much a part of hate crimes. They're not separable.
I dunno if I agree with you overall, but getting punched in the face in the street is wildly different from someone calling you a bad name on the Internet, so on that point I entirely agree.
Getting punched in the face is primal, it gets into that part of your brain that we’re all wisely told to suppress, the animalistic nature of us upright apes.
It’s… well, nobody has ever said anything to me online that has caused me to feel even a fraction of what I’ve felt getting punched in the face.
I don’t know how or even if that contributes to the conversation, but I think it’s worth saying.
Getting punched in the face is primal, it gets into that part of your brain that we’re all wisely told to suppress, the animalistic nature of us upright apes.
It’s… well, nobody has ever said anything to me online that has caused me to feel even a fraction of what I’ve felt getting punched in the face.
I don’t know how or even if that contributes to the conversation, but I think it’s worth saying.
I have a lot of experience with physical violence. The Brandenburg criteria of specificity and imminence are useful legal yardsticks, but they also assume every set of circumstances is isolated from everything else and can can considered independently, almost in a social vacuum. This is partly the outcome of the Anglo-American legal tradition and the reductive philosophical approach it uses.
It's less clear cut in the real world. To some extent one must be willing to tolerate negative incoming messages, or otherwise one would never leave one's home ot risk any interaction at all. On the other hand, to argue that no speech act can ever have a violent component by definition is facile; much speech as a prelude the violence, and a lack of specificity in space, manner, or time just as easily be designed to stoke fear by strategically using uncertainty to render its object paranoid and exhaust their defensive capability in advance.
Much of this discourse at present is purely strategic, and often wildly disingenuous. Many people who speak in lofty terms about free speech (not specifying anyone in particular here) are notably silent when it comes to people harrassing librarians or allegations that drag shows = groomers + pedophilia and therefore are legitimate targets for physical or terroristic violence (bomb threats and the like that are sufficiently credible to provoke a police response).
It's less clear cut in the real world. To some extent one must be willing to tolerate negative incoming messages, or otherwise one would never leave one's home ot risk any interaction at all. On the other hand, to argue that no speech act can ever have a violent component by definition is facile; much speech as a prelude the violence, and a lack of specificity in space, manner, or time just as easily be designed to stoke fear by strategically using uncertainty to render its object paranoid and exhaust their defensive capability in advance.
Much of this discourse at present is purely strategic, and often wildly disingenuous. Many people who speak in lofty terms about free speech (not specifying anyone in particular here) are notably silent when it comes to people harrassing librarians or allegations that drag shows = groomers + pedophilia and therefore are legitimate targets for physical or terroristic violence (bomb threats and the like that are sufficiently credible to provoke a police response).
Much of this discourse at present is purely strategic, and often wildly disingenuous. Many people who speak in lofty terms about free speech (not specifying anyone in particular here) are notably silent when it comes to people harrassing librarians or allegations that drag shows = groomers + pedophilia and therefore are legitimate targets for physical or terroristic violence (bomb threats and the like that are sufficiently credible to provoke a police response).
Now, imagine that the bad actors you're referring to have come to power, and because you've nerfed 1A, they now have the power of prior restraint over your speech, and that of their victims.
Still think it's a net win?
------------Replying here due to rate limiting:
The big problem I have with what you wrote is "much speech (is) a prelude (to) violence," used in a context that seemingly justifies equating the speech with the violence that ensues. This is an argument for prior restraint. No?
Now, imagine that the bad actors you're referring to have come to power, and because you've nerfed 1A, they now have the power of prior restraint over your speech, and that of their victims.
Still think it's a net win?
------------Replying here due to rate limiting:
The big problem I have with what you wrote is "much speech (is) a prelude (to) violence," used in a context that seemingly justifies equating the speech with the violence that ensues. This is an argument for prior restraint. No?
> that are sufficiently credible to provoke a police response
They do promote a police response because making a bomb threat is illegal in itself. Harassment is illegal in itself
You don't need to redefine a bunch of words and do a bunch of mental gymnastics to make something that's already illegal illegal
They do promote a police response because making a bomb threat is illegal in itself. Harassment is illegal in itself
You don't need to redefine a bunch of words and do a bunch of mental gymnastics to make something that's already illegal illegal
So what? I'm not arguing about the legal contours, I'm arguing about general concepts of meaning and risk management, outside of a legal context. I said so explicitly at the beginning of my comment.
People who equate speech with violence are usually looking for a way to respond to speech with violence.
You bring up a very observable fact about how the extreme left is approaching the right via antifa. I don't see a reason for downvotes.
My comment is not directed towards any one political orientation.
Agreed. It's an announcement that you've determined that some speech has to be crushed, but also preemptively framing it as self-defense. It's like when you first hear about Libertarians having a Non-Aggression Principle at their core, but then you start to hear how they redefine "aggression."
In a very similar way, when Group A starts calling Group B "terrorist," it's really an announcement that Group A is going to be compromising their own professed ethics and processes to destroy Group B. It's an announcement of martial law, not a label that reliably describes any particular behavior by "terrorist" groups.
Speech- and thought-violence rhetoric is just empty rationalization and crybully rhetoric from the powerless, but it's often a prelude to a brutal crackdown when it comes from the powerful.
In a very similar way, when Group A starts calling Group B "terrorist," it's really an announcement that Group A is going to be compromising their own professed ethics and processes to destroy Group B. It's an announcement of martial law, not a label that reliably describes any particular behavior by "terrorist" groups.
Speech- and thought-violence rhetoric is just empty rationalization and crybully rhetoric from the powerless, but it's often a prelude to a brutal crackdown when it comes from the powerful.
how much physical violence is enough? Getting jumped by a crowd of dudes for no reason? Getting held up at gunpoint? There was definitely some other stuff as well, but those are the most memorable. I do admit that i haven't been in an actual warzone though.
So you're saying that you equate speech (not credible, specific threats or other extreme examples of non-protected speech) with having your life threatened physically.
I wish I could understand where you're coming from. I genuinely do.
------------- Replying here due to rate limit:
That's why I said "generally." I'm not setting out to invalidate or disrespect any individual's experience.
It's likely that we'd have no trouble finding Holocaust survivors who would equate Nazi rhetoric with violence, for instance. They would agree with your position, given that such rhetoric arguably facilitated violence against them that would not otherwise have occurred. German law reflects this point of view.
But my position has traditionally been that prior restraint empowers the bad guys to an even greater extent. You don't want Nazis spreading messages of hate and violence... but you really don't want them telling you what you can say, if/when they come to power again.
I wish I could understand where you're coming from. I genuinely do.
------------- Replying here due to rate limit:
That's why I said "generally." I'm not setting out to invalidate or disrespect any individual's experience.
It's likely that we'd have no trouble finding Holocaust survivors who would equate Nazi rhetoric with violence, for instance. They would agree with your position, given that such rhetoric arguably facilitated violence against them that would not otherwise have occurred. German law reflects this point of view.
But my position has traditionally been that prior restraint empowers the bad guys to an even greater extent. You don't want Nazis spreading messages of hate and violence... but you really don't want them telling you what you can say, if/when they come to power again.
The quote was:
> People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence.
Just wondering if that meets the standard or not. Not that I think all speech is violence though.
I just think you setup a strawman.
> People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence.
Just wondering if that meets the standard or not. Not that I think all speech is violence though.
I just think you setup a strawman.
He said nothing like that.
The important thing is that you're here to tell us what everybody else is saying. The ironic thing is that nobody can be certain what you're saying.
Oh, I think you understand me just fine.
Help, help, I'm being repressed. See the violence inherent in the comment section
Agree, nor do they have accurate grasp of reality, living in sheltered environments expecting internet rules apply to physical world.
Getting punched in the face is a good start.
Getting punched in the face is a good start.
On the other hand, you can't have your liberal, intellectual society if you allow people to go around making credible threats of violence, which are "just speech" if you subscribe to the speech-is-speech, violence-is-violence approach. If you have to wait until the threat is realized, then any group capable of having members take the punishment for individual acts of violence can grant credibility to making threats to others.
To avoid their society devolving into "rule by overt threat of violence", people typically agree that someone who says "I will shoot John Doe between the 3rd and 4th ribs with the FAL I have in my attic using this .308 round at 2:13 pm tomorrow as he walks his kids to school like he does every day except Tuesday, unless he pays me $500" should be able to be stopped, violently if necessary, before they have a chance to actualize their speech.
Arguing whether that speech is, in-of-itself, violence comes down to the messy semantics of trying to define violence. The fact that it is unacceptable is relatively unanimously agreed upon. So the question isn't "Can speech be unacceptable?" it's "What kind of speech is unacceptable?".
The example I gave was a specific, actionable, and credible threat against an individual, by the individual that intended to carry out the threatened violence. I'll assume most readers would mark that as "acceptably provoking punishment". Where it gets messy is when you start shaving off qualifiers. For example, someone stating "I'm going to kill all the programmers, and here's how" is potentially making a credible and actionable threat, but against a non-specific group of people. Is that worthy of punishment? What about someone with a large audience saying "It is our moral obligation to eliminate the programmers by any means necessary", maybe wink-winking and nudge-nudging at a guillotine in the background. It's not specific, and they're not saying THEY are going to be the ones to commit the violence, but it's still a little hinky.
In my opinion, that last one is probably the source of most discourse around "is speech violence". Most everyone is okay with suppressing more overt threats than that. It's when you get to that line that people break down into the camps of "people using their influence to benefit by threatening violence in a plausibly deniable way" warranting (self)defense or not.
So saying "but my free speech" or "it's just speech" isn't really a compelling point. We all agree that some kinds of violent speech should be suppressed. The question is simply where the line gets drawn.
To avoid their society devolving into "rule by overt threat of violence", people typically agree that someone who says "I will shoot John Doe between the 3rd and 4th ribs with the FAL I have in my attic using this .308 round at 2:13 pm tomorrow as he walks his kids to school like he does every day except Tuesday, unless he pays me $500" should be able to be stopped, violently if necessary, before they have a chance to actualize their speech.
Arguing whether that speech is, in-of-itself, violence comes down to the messy semantics of trying to define violence. The fact that it is unacceptable is relatively unanimously agreed upon. So the question isn't "Can speech be unacceptable?" it's "What kind of speech is unacceptable?".
The example I gave was a specific, actionable, and credible threat against an individual, by the individual that intended to carry out the threatened violence. I'll assume most readers would mark that as "acceptably provoking punishment". Where it gets messy is when you start shaving off qualifiers. For example, someone stating "I'm going to kill all the programmers, and here's how" is potentially making a credible and actionable threat, but against a non-specific group of people. Is that worthy of punishment? What about someone with a large audience saying "It is our moral obligation to eliminate the programmers by any means necessary", maybe wink-winking and nudge-nudging at a guillotine in the background. It's not specific, and they're not saying THEY are going to be the ones to commit the violence, but it's still a little hinky.
In my opinion, that last one is probably the source of most discourse around "is speech violence". Most everyone is okay with suppressing more overt threats than that. It's when you get to that line that people break down into the camps of "people using their influence to benefit by threatening violence in a plausibly deniable way" warranting (self)defense or not.
So saying "but my free speech" or "it's just speech" isn't really a compelling point. We all agree that some kinds of violent speech should be suppressed. The question is simply where the line gets drawn.
> We all agree that some kinds of violent speech should be suppressed.
This is bad consensus-building. It is not a reflection of reality, but an attempt to strongarm the reader into agreeing with a false claim by exploiting people's willingness to accept confident claims at face value.
This is bad consensus-building. It is not a reflection of reality, but an attempt to strongarm the reader into agreeing with a false claim by exploiting people's willingness to accept confident claims at face value.
Do you, or anyone you know, honestly believe that the level of threat that would constitute assault in most common law jurisdictions should be treated as protected free speech? My example, of a specific, credible, actionable threat.
I know plenty of people with extreme views, but "coercion by threat of violence should be legal" is not one I've heard before. It certainly is a consensus, and your denial of such is in dubious faith.
I know plenty of people with extreme views, but "coercion by threat of violence should be legal" is not one I've heard before. It certainly is a consensus, and your denial of such is in dubious faith.
I believe that equating credible threat with violent speech is a category error. Speech is not the only thing going on for the threat to be established as credible. Perhaps those things should be more harshly sanctioned than they are. Perhaps there are structural problems that grant enough leverage to create threat with only the outward appearance of speech.
Speech alone -> the level of threat that would constitute assault in most common law jurisdictions is tantamount to AI-boxing, and while I don't consider that quite crackpot enough to dismiss out of hand, the implications are absolutely not anywhere near "we all agree" levels of consensus.
Speech alone -> the level of threat that would constitute assault in most common law jurisdictions is tantamount to AI-boxing, and while I don't consider that quite crackpot enough to dismiss out of hand, the implications are absolutely not anywhere near "we all agree" levels of consensus.
The guy with the FAL hasn't committed any crimes, except for speaking (a threat). He can legally own a firearm, he can legally be aware of his neighbor's habits, and he can legally ask his neighbor for some cash. Yet you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that wouldn't take his statement as criminal, and at the very least use it as grounds to take him into custody.
The only thing criminal committed is the speech.
My "false consensus building" was the assertion that the vast majority of people are okay with that speech being criminalized. Call it "violent speech", or "speech about violence" or "speech threatening but not directly constituting violence", but at the end of the day, we're talking about speech, criminalized speech, criminalized speech that damn near everyone is in agreement should be criminalized.
The only thing criminal committed is the speech.
My "false consensus building" was the assertion that the vast majority of people are okay with that speech being criminalized. Call it "violent speech", or "speech about violence" or "speech threatening but not directly constituting violence", but at the end of the day, we're talking about speech, criminalized speech, criminalized speech that damn near everyone is in agreement should be criminalized.
> Yet you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that wouldn't take his statement as criminal, and at the very least use it as grounds to take him into custody.
And yet you would be hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that has ever done so, because that's not really how people make credible threats of violence for extortion.
We have a lot of case law around extortion.
> The only thing criminal committed is the speech.
It is, in many jurisdictions, not illegal to drive. Yet it is generally illegal to drive while underage. Clearly, the only thing criminal committed is being below the driving age.
And yet you would be hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that has ever done so, because that's not really how people make credible threats of violence for extortion.
We have a lot of case law around extortion.
> The only thing criminal committed is the speech.
It is, in many jurisdictions, not illegal to drive. Yet it is generally illegal to drive while underage. Clearly, the only thing criminal committed is being below the driving age.
> The question is simply where the line gets drawn.
And that's one which people who consider themselves ardent defenders of free speech frequently miss. I mean, the linked article concludes with a quote insisting that people's speech should "stop short of demanding that the offender be punished or required to make restitution"... earlier in the piece the same author is quoted criticising "campaigns of vilification" and people being "pressed to recant" as the sort of speech which violates principles of liberalism.
That's absolutely drawing a line and putting a whole lot of non-violent, First Amendment-protected speech the wrong side of it, in the style of Popper's paradox-of-tolerance but with the line for what liberalism shouldn't tolerate in a slightly different place. In general, I'm quite amenable to their argument that publicly vilifying certain people in certain ways for things they've said is harmful to the pursuit of science, but I can't see any qualitative difference between that and the argument that certain people ranting about certain minorities might be harmful to individuals (and by dint of its effects on those individuals, also to the pursuit of science). The latter argument has a better evidence base than the argument that non-violent picketing of Milo Yiannopoulos puts the benefits of science at risk, and I don't think the slippery slope between disinviting Milo from Berkeley and fatwas against people accused of blasphemy is any steeper than that between being intolerant of fatwas but also intolerant of bullying and racism.
And that's one which people who consider themselves ardent defenders of free speech frequently miss. I mean, the linked article concludes with a quote insisting that people's speech should "stop short of demanding that the offender be punished or required to make restitution"... earlier in the piece the same author is quoted criticising "campaigns of vilification" and people being "pressed to recant" as the sort of speech which violates principles of liberalism.
That's absolutely drawing a line and putting a whole lot of non-violent, First Amendment-protected speech the wrong side of it, in the style of Popper's paradox-of-tolerance but with the line for what liberalism shouldn't tolerate in a slightly different place. In general, I'm quite amenable to their argument that publicly vilifying certain people in certain ways for things they've said is harmful to the pursuit of science, but I can't see any qualitative difference between that and the argument that certain people ranting about certain minorities might be harmful to individuals (and by dint of its effects on those individuals, also to the pursuit of science). The latter argument has a better evidence base than the argument that non-violent picketing of Milo Yiannopoulos puts the benefits of science at risk, and I don't think the slippery slope between disinviting Milo from Berkeley and fatwas against people accused of blasphemy is any steeper than that between being intolerant of fatwas but also intolerant of bullying and racism.
I think the case of Milo and Berkeley is a good litmus test. I would agree that non-violent protest is entirely reasonable. Violent protest and property destruction is not. I also think that backlash against people who are intellectually curious and want to hear what they had to say is unreasonable and this is the most contentious point. The idea that even listening to a contrary opinion is a moral offense is illiberal cult thinking. It is Direct attack on information gathering and critical analysis.
Judging people based on the content of their speech is one thing, but judging people on their willingness to even listen to offensive speech is another
Judging people based on the content of their speech is one thing, but judging people on their willingness to even listen to offensive speech is another
I didn't think that credible threats of violence or harassment were protected yet they've become almost normalized.
I cant even remember the last time I saw a credible threat of violence online. It is hard for me to believe they are normalized.
I often hear of people having the Twitter mob descend on them so hard that it makes the news and they get a shitload of menacing violent threats on their voicemail or other harassment.
To be clear, I am not saying it doesn't occur.
I am just pushing pack on the idea that just because something happens regularly or frequently, it is normalized. There are 350 Americans and 5+ billion people on the internet.
You could probably run a news story every day about a mother who murdered their child, but that doesn't mean infanticide is normalized. It doesn't even mean infanticide is a serious problem.
I am just pushing pack on the idea that just because something happens regularly or frequently, it is normalized. There are 350 Americans and 5+ billion people on the internet.
You could probably run a news story every day about a mother who murdered their child, but that doesn't mean infanticide is normalized. It doesn't even mean infanticide is a serious problem.
Hm. Agreed. I meant common but I agree that the words are not interchangeable.
Thanks for clarifying, that makes more sense.
> The question is simply where the line gets drawn.
Not that simple. First you have to decide who gets to draw it.
Not that simple. First you have to decide who gets to draw it.
In a "liberal, intellectual society", surely each individual would choose for themselves where the line is drawn, and then vigorously debate amongst themselves until a position wins out in the marketplace of ideas, right?
Nothing says liberal and intellectual like unquestioningly handing off decision making to some authority figure.
Nothing says liberal and intellectual like unquestioningly handing off decision making to some authority figure.
I dont think there is ever complete wins in a marketplace of ideas. This is the problem that people struggle to deal with
Probably we need to throw out the term 'marketplace of ideas' becomes it implies there is only one.
I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics.
Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of trans people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these woke libs trying to cancel us are the real n@zis". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of trans people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these woke libs trying to cancel us are the real n@zis". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
"Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence"
Legislation in the US has actually made trans people vanish or are we using large amounts of hyperbole?
People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind. I don't see many jews running around screaming that speech is violence, we just get on with it. Same for black people dealing with those same white supremacists.
"don't let words affect you". Exactly! I am all for us as adults just not letting the words of people we will never meet affect us. I've sat down and had beers with open anti Semites and people with swastika tattoos while being very open about being a jew. Its fine, I had a good talk with them, nobody changed anyone's mind but we parted on good terms. I hope they find happiness. I in no way want them prosecuted for their beliefs or speech.
Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. And its primarily M2F trans people (in my experience), I don't really see F2M people doing it. I wonder if there is something related to the giving up of male physical strength that leads to demanding that society now protect you in all ways including your feelings. You're trans, cool, get on with it. Stop asking for special treatment.
The only Nazis are actual Nazis.
Let the downvotes commence.
People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind. I don't see many jews running around screaming that speech is violence, we just get on with it. Same for black people dealing with those same white supremacists.
"don't let words affect you". Exactly! I am all for us as adults just not letting the words of people we will never meet affect us. I've sat down and had beers with open anti Semites and people with swastika tattoos while being very open about being a jew. Its fine, I had a good talk with them, nobody changed anyone's mind but we parted on good terms. I hope they find happiness. I in no way want them prosecuted for their beliefs or speech.
Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. And its primarily M2F trans people (in my experience), I don't really see F2M people doing it. I wonder if there is something related to the giving up of male physical strength that leads to demanding that society now protect you in all ways including your feelings. You're trans, cool, get on with it. Stop asking for special treatment.
The only Nazis are actual Nazis.
Let the downvotes commence.
> I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind
You're acting as though the likely outcome of neo-nazi groups is some skinhead trying to fight you. What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue.
>Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal.
This is simply nonsense. Pretty much every group in the country has a contingent that wants speech against them regulated
You're acting as though the likely outcome of neo-nazi groups is some skinhead trying to fight you. What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue.
>Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal.
This is simply nonsense. Pretty much every group in the country has a contingent that wants speech against them regulated
There are always consequences to freedom of ideas. Some good, some bad. The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship. I think people that attack others verbally for who or what they are are bad people. I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse. It's all good when the leaders we like are in power and stifle the speech of those we disagree with. It's not so fun when the pendulum swings and those we disagree with have that power.
"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue." Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? The only way to eliminate violence based on ideals is to eliminate free will. 1984 here we come.
"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue." Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? The only way to eliminate violence based on ideals is to eliminate free will. 1984 here we come.
>The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship.
That's not true. Nazi ideology is banned in Germany, and they are a far healthier democracy than the United States.
> I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse.
So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?
> Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban?
You're making up things that I 'believe'. I don't personally think that nazi ideology should be banned.
I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense. The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism, not street fights you can be prepared for or defend yourself against.
That's not true. Nazi ideology is banned in Germany, and they are a far healthier democracy than the United States.
> I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse.
So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?
> Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban?
You're making up things that I 'believe'. I don't personally think that nazi ideology should be banned.
I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense. The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism, not street fights you can be prepared for or defend yourself against.
"So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?" That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder.
"I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense". Cool, I still support near absolute free speech.
Nazis are banned in Germany as a result of WW2 and was part of their rehabilitation. Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America? Biden? Trump? Desantis? Elizabeth Warren? The supreme court? I agree Nazis are bad, I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
"I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense". Cool, I still support near absolute free speech.
Nazis are banned in Germany as a result of WW2 and was part of their rehabilitation. Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America? Biden? Trump? Desantis? Elizabeth Warren? The supreme court? I agree Nazis are bad, I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
>That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy.
Yes it is, because the State decided to censor and restrict 'free speech' in that case.
>I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder.
Sure, I'm very open to my belief we should censor and punish some speech. I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction.
>Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America?
That power already resides with Congress and then hypothetically the Supreme Court. Functioning democracies can have conversations and then decide when, where, and how to restrict speech. We've been doing that for 250 years.
>I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
We've already established that you think the government can and should restrict ideas. 'Free speech absolutist' are rarely actually absolutist.
Yes it is, because the State decided to censor and restrict 'free speech' in that case.
>I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder.
Sure, I'm very open to my belief we should censor and punish some speech. I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction.
>Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America?
That power already resides with Congress and then hypothetically the Supreme Court. Functioning democracies can have conversations and then decide when, where, and how to restrict speech. We've been doing that for 250 years.
>I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
We've already established that you think the government can and should restrict ideas. 'Free speech absolutist' are rarely actually absolutist.
Never claimed to be an absolutist. In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence." There are likely other crime related caveats. Now with that said I am not advocating for freedom from social consequences just preventing the state from using its lock on violence to implement those consequences.
"I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction." I do think its an appropriate reaction. Again large difference between saying something mean about a group of people and calling for their murder. I think anti-trans people are bad, just like I think the same of anti anything people. I just think banning speech is worse.
I support government restricted speech in the context of preventing physical harm, that's pretty much it. You are right that congress creates the laws but in most cases the supreme court is going to prevent things that are overruled by the 1st. As it should be.
My main point is that saying speech is violence makes no sense. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. We spend 99% of our time worrying about things that in reality have no effect on our lives. If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Stop worrying about pointless nonsense.
"I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction." I do think its an appropriate reaction. Again large difference between saying something mean about a group of people and calling for their murder. I think anti-trans people are bad, just like I think the same of anti anything people. I just think banning speech is worse.
I support government restricted speech in the context of preventing physical harm, that's pretty much it. You are right that congress creates the laws but in most cases the supreme court is going to prevent things that are overruled by the 1st. As it should be.
My main point is that saying speech is violence makes no sense. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. We spend 99% of our time worrying about things that in reality have no effect on our lives. If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Stop worrying about pointless nonsense.
>Never claimed to be an absolutist.
You're whole premise is that the government shouldn't regulate speech, as it "leads to dictatorship"
>In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence."
That's fine if that's what you believe. 'Believable threats of violence' is a completely ambiguous and meaningless term in regards to actual regulation and laws.
>e. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives.
The focus is on people who have their loved ones massacred because of people who were riled up online.
>If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares?
Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might.
You're whole premise is that the government shouldn't regulate speech, as it "leads to dictatorship"
>In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence."
That's fine if that's what you believe. 'Believable threats of violence' is a completely ambiguous and meaningless term in regards to actual regulation and laws.
>e. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives.
The focus is on people who have their loved ones massacred because of people who were riled up online.
>If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares?
Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might.
hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case. If if was, there wouldn't be very many people left at all. 99.999999% of the time JewHater99 is just going to go about living a normal life and continue posting anonymously on the web.
>hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case
That's not what I've said and you know it. It really seems like you don't actually understand the position you think youre arguing against.
That's not what I've said and you know it. It really seems like you don't actually understand the position you think youre arguing against.
Pretty sure it was.
"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue."
"The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism"
"Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might"
"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue."
"The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism"
"Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might"
The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
> Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal.
this in an incredibly disingenuous take. Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal? last i checked trans people were still trying to access affirming medical care and not be attacked in the streets. If you are referring to like pronouns/names, I still think you are being disingenuous. I think right to self determination is a meaningful thing to fight for, you can argue that one persons request to be called by their chosen name impedes on your speech but i think you're wrong.
> I don't really see F2M people doing it
This is actually a really interesting phenomena! It does have to do with existing double standards in how society treats men and women. The fact is a lot of trans men either have an easier time passing bc masculine aesthetics are easier to adopt or they are dismissed because they aren't seen as a threat by people who think a penis is the thing that makes you dangerous. Of course trans men have their own battles but they largely aren't being branded as a sex offender for existing in the way that trans women are. Also they absolutely are fighting for the same rights, it may seem quieter because the popular culture war talking point is specifically about drag queens. I don't think the media has figured out how to villainize trans men.
> Stop asking for special treatment.
Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this
this in an incredibly disingenuous take. Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal? last i checked trans people were still trying to access affirming medical care and not be attacked in the streets. If you are referring to like pronouns/names, I still think you are being disingenuous. I think right to self determination is a meaningful thing to fight for, you can argue that one persons request to be called by their chosen name impedes on your speech but i think you're wrong.
> I don't really see F2M people doing it
This is actually a really interesting phenomena! It does have to do with existing double standards in how society treats men and women. The fact is a lot of trans men either have an easier time passing bc masculine aesthetics are easier to adopt or they are dismissed because they aren't seen as a threat by people who think a penis is the thing that makes you dangerous. Of course trans men have their own battles but they largely aren't being branded as a sex offender for existing in the way that trans women are. Also they absolutely are fighting for the same rights, it may seem quieter because the popular culture war talking point is specifically about drag queens. I don't think the media has figured out how to villainize trans men.
> Stop asking for special treatment.
Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this
"Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal?"
Come on, did you read the post I was responding to? My post was a response to another post. Op appeared to want it to be made illegal. Calling speech violence implies that certain speech should be illegal as inflicting violence on others is illegal.
"Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this" The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it. Keep it out of schools and respect parental rights and I guarantee the focus on this goes away.
The only reason the focus is on drag queens is because kids are being taken to highly sexualized shows. Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.
NSFW
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1603512564628987922?...
Come on, did you read the post I was responding to? My post was a response to another post. Op appeared to want it to be made illegal. Calling speech violence implies that certain speech should be illegal as inflicting violence on others is illegal.
"Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this" The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it. Keep it out of schools and respect parental rights and I guarantee the focus on this goes away.
The only reason the focus is on drag queens is because kids are being taken to highly sexualized shows. Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.
NSFW
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1603512564628987922?...
I wrote that comment and I don't want to make speech illegal I want acknowledgement that speech can be harmful and allow communities to self moderate if they are threatened.
> The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it
Frankly this is a lie. The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross. It's circular logic to say that trans adults shouldn't exist because it will encourage my kid to grow up to be a trans adult. It's like saying that you don't want to live around Atheists because you want your kid to be Christian, fine enough but you can't stop people from being a thing you don't like, and your ability to stop your child from being it probably wanes earlier than you'd like.
> Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.
no yall will find another reason to demonize trans people because you actually don't care about safety you care about your delicate sensibilities. It's a witch hunt and drag shows are the current "spell"
Where is the line with where one persons existence affects children? Sure your libsoftiktok "citation" is an example of an entertainer being too lewd for the audience but in no way does an entire demographic need to take the fall for a cherry-picked example of lewdness. Also who gets to decide what is too lewd? Do you want to give the government that power? Should it be illegal to show your kid an R rated movie? Is it the parents responsibility or the production team of the movie? Or are movies and movie likers at large to blame? Is a trans person going to the grocery store a danger to your kids? Is telling kids that trans people exist a danger? Where is the line between telling kids that its ok that some people in the world are trans and turning kids trans?
IDK Maybe we should also not tell our kids anything about "traditional" gender norms lest we anger any indignant parents who might agree/disagree that girls should have aspirations beyond motherhood.
> The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it
Frankly this is a lie. The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross. It's circular logic to say that trans adults shouldn't exist because it will encourage my kid to grow up to be a trans adult. It's like saying that you don't want to live around Atheists because you want your kid to be Christian, fine enough but you can't stop people from being a thing you don't like, and your ability to stop your child from being it probably wanes earlier than you'd like.
> Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.
no yall will find another reason to demonize trans people because you actually don't care about safety you care about your delicate sensibilities. It's a witch hunt and drag shows are the current "spell"
Where is the line with where one persons existence affects children? Sure your libsoftiktok "citation" is an example of an entertainer being too lewd for the audience but in no way does an entire demographic need to take the fall for a cherry-picked example of lewdness. Also who gets to decide what is too lewd? Do you want to give the government that power? Should it be illegal to show your kid an R rated movie? Is it the parents responsibility or the production team of the movie? Or are movies and movie likers at large to blame? Is a trans person going to the grocery store a danger to your kids? Is telling kids that trans people exist a danger? Where is the line between telling kids that its ok that some people in the world are trans and turning kids trans?
IDK Maybe we should also not tell our kids anything about "traditional" gender norms lest we anger any indignant parents who might agree/disagree that girls should have aspirations beyond motherhood.
"The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross"
What? I have no issues with trans people at all as long as they just live their lives like everyone else and stop attempting to enforce trans education in schools, unfairly compete in women's sports and not perform lewd acts in front of kids. Other than that I wish them nothing but happiness. Trans people should be able to do whatever they want in normal polite society. The backlash that the trans community has started over parents just saying please don't be sexual around my kids is crazy. Or please don't tell my kids in school that maybe they may be the wrong gender. Or schools please don't lie to parents if our kids express gender confusion. How are these outrageous requests? It very much seems that a portion of the trans community wants special treatment above and beyond the general population.
Trans people largely dont want to be "sexual" around children. The problem is that you are conflating a performance art (drag) with an entire demographic of people (trans people). Do you actually think trans people are sexually assaulting kids or do you just perceive them existing in society as an assault? Why are trans topics in education bad if they describe the lived experience of your neighbors? I don't genuinely believe you would leave trans people alone, if they gave up any ground. you just want them to shut up and get out of sight so they don't legitimize a lifestyle that you disprove of.
> as long as they just live their lives like everyone else
The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice. You make the active decision every day to teach kids that boys cant wear dresses, or that girls and boys need to be separated in sports. You can justify those beliefs all you want but at the end of the day, you are saying that your perspective is right and that trans people are wrong. So no you are not asking them to "live their life like I do" because you don't want them to advertise a lifestyle different from yours
> as long as they just live their lives like everyone else
The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice. You make the active decision every day to teach kids that boys cant wear dresses, or that girls and boys need to be separated in sports. You can justify those beliefs all you want but at the end of the day, you are saying that your perspective is right and that trans people are wrong. So no you are not asking them to "live their life like I do" because you don't want them to advertise a lifestyle different from yours
I've never done anything negative to a trans person in my life so not sure what you mean by I won't leave them alone. Unless you think having a calm conversation and exchange of ideas on HN is harassment.
As far as "The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice." Yup, and as a parent I make choices for my kids every day based on what I think is right for their success and happiness. I don't wish trans people ill at all indeed I wish them good lives but I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life. For a variety of reasons. Plus I want my boys to be boys. That's my preference. But I'm not looking to make that choice for any adult. Adult being the key word.
As soon as the trans community says yes sexual drag shows for kids is wrong and schools lying to parents is wrong and discussing sexuality in school is wrong then I'm all good.
As far as "The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice." Yup, and as a parent I make choices for my kids every day based on what I think is right for their success and happiness. I don't wish trans people ill at all indeed I wish them good lives but I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life. For a variety of reasons. Plus I want my boys to be boys. That's my preference. But I'm not looking to make that choice for any adult. Adult being the key word.
As soon as the trans community says yes sexual drag shows for kids is wrong and schools lying to parents is wrong and discussing sexuality in school is wrong then I'm all good.
there isnt like a trans spokesperson. Individual trans people arent responsible for every bad event you attribute to them. I'm sure trans people will agree with you on isolated cases but others might reject bad-faith characterizations of drag overall. Also i don't know what you mean about "lying to parents".
> I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life.
How cowardly. Why do you think its a harder life? Might it be because trans people are hated by society? Might that be because people continue to perpetuate myths that they are corrupting education?
> That's my preference
then dont teach my kids that there is only one way to live your life. Do you also want your kids to reach 18 and be surprised by the existence of trans people when they finally leave your shelter? How do you think they'll react after being taught that "boys should be boys"?
> I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life.
How cowardly. Why do you think its a harder life? Might it be because trans people are hated by society? Might that be because people continue to perpetuate myths that they are corrupting education?
> That's my preference
then dont teach my kids that there is only one way to live your life. Do you also want your kids to reach 18 and be surprised by the existence of trans people when they finally leave your shelter? How do you think they'll react after being taught that "boys should be boys"?
"How cowardly"
Alright, I think we have reached a point in the conversation where you are too emotionally compromised to continue and hurling insults instead of having a calm conversation. I wish you all the best
> Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this
Because equal rights are the goal, not special treatment.
Because equal rights are the goal, not special treatment.
> by people who think a penis is the thing that makes you dangerous
It is the means by which a man can forcibly impregnate a woman. This is a very real risk to women, and is one reason why so many women are deeply uncomfortable with males imposing themselves in spaces where women are vulnerable, like bathrooms and locker rooms.
It is the means by which a man can forcibly impregnate a woman. This is a very real risk to women, and is one reason why so many women are deeply uncomfortable with males imposing themselves in spaces where women are vulnerable, like bathrooms and locker rooms.
our current system does not prevent sexual assault from occurring in public restrooms, men can enter restrooms and assault someone if they really want to and sexual predators arent transitioning to get more access to women. Trans women also experience a high proportion of sexual/physical assault from men, should they be asked to enter a potentially dangerous situation? Is 1 trans woman a threat to a bathroom with 3 cis women in it? Or are 3 cis men in a bathroom a threat to 1 trans woman?
Any enforcement of bathroom norms sounds more dystopian than this fiction of rampant trans sexual assault. Do you want genital checks at the bathroom door? Maybe you want to have a security detail watching people piss. Do you want trans people to be reported to the authorities for using an enclosed stall alone?
Any enforcement of bathroom norms sounds more dystopian than this fiction of rampant trans sexual assault. Do you want genital checks at the bathroom door? Maybe you want to have a security detail watching people piss. Do you want trans people to be reported to the authorities for using an enclosed stall alone?
This is a very shortsighted, historically-ignorant take that singles out M2F trans folks disingenuously - there have been plenty of calls from all over society, from cis women to trans women to trans men to gay folks to straight folks to any and all racial groups.
No, let’s just ignore all the times this has happened in history and all the times other groups had raised similar points (their possible merits aside), pretend this is a new problem, and blame MTF folks for it.
Beware isolated standards of rigor, folks.
No, let’s just ignore all the times this has happened in history and all the times other groups had raised similar points (their possible merits aside), pretend this is a new problem, and blame MTF folks for it.
Beware isolated standards of rigor, folks.
Surely you would feel very differently if you were born in a slightly different time in the not-so-distant past. How do you imagine the first "actual Nazis" came to the position of power where they could slaughter thousands of your community with impunity for nearly a generation? How do you imagine it couldn't happen again, if not in your lifetime, at some point in humanity's timeline? If not regarding Jews, regarding some new community?
Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]?
[ * ] (assuming, quite unreasonably, that that's actually something that could happen at a societal level)
Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]?
[ * ] (assuming, quite unreasonably, that that's actually something that could happen at a societal level)
Don't call me Shirley. Sorry I had too. There is a very large difference between random people doing it and the actual government the possesors of state sanctioned violence stirring people against you and I think you know that. On top of that, we live in the now in the United States. Freedom of speech is a very real thing that I very strongly believe should be close to absolute. Otherwise who gets to choose what is forbidden speech? Probably would not have liked it if Trump could decide what people are allowed to say.
> Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]?
Yes because the Nazis were butthurt bitches and used their perceived victimisation as an excuse to met out horrible torture, violence and dehumanisation.
Hitler tried to have a guy in Italy bought to heel for making his dog do a Nazi salute FFS.
Yes because the Nazis were butthurt bitches and used their perceived victimisation as an excuse to met out horrible torture, violence and dehumanisation.
Hitler tried to have a guy in Italy bought to heel for making his dog do a Nazi salute FFS.
> Some speech suppresses the speech of others.
No, it doesn't.
> it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
No, it's about making sure people can spew a continuous stream of whatever hateful crap they feel like day in and day out every day for their whole life. One of the big reasons I'm a fan of things like universal income/healthcare is because currently employment is too critical to surviving which forces people to censor their speech. Hopefully the social safety net can improve to the point where someone can be almost comically offensive every day without fear of starving.
> If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices
That's an acceptable tradeoff for a free society.
No, it doesn't.
> it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
No, it's about making sure people can spew a continuous stream of whatever hateful crap they feel like day in and day out every day for their whole life. One of the big reasons I'm a fan of things like universal income/healthcare is because currently employment is too critical to surviving which forces people to censor their speech. Hopefully the social safety net can improve to the point where someone can be almost comically offensive every day without fear of starving.
> If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices
That's an acceptable tradeoff for a free society.
> Some speech suppresses the speech of others
Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here?
> Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment
> it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing are definitely well known for promoting this /s
Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here?
> Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment
> it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing are definitely well known for promoting this /s
> Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment
It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.
It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.
It derives from philosophical thought and justification that rests on the idea that all men are created equal and that no one man is above another because of where or how they were born and that all men should be allowed to operate freely so long as they do not cause harm to others.
Yeah, we can't have that. That thinking is going to cause some obvious issues.
> morality of speech
Where are you getting this morality business from?
Free speech is how it's defined in law, in the USA that's the 1st
Talking about "morality of speech" is just noise and deserves the quotation marks
Where are you getting this morality business from?
Free speech is how it's defined in law, in the USA that's the 1st
Talking about "morality of speech" is just noise and deserves the quotation marks
I do not agree with the OP's apparent presupposition that age somehow invalidates truth (without even giving us so much as an alternative and a basis for accepting it). However, the law is incomprehensible without morality. What on earth could you possibly take the law to be in the absence of morality? The natural law is the basis of morality and morality is the basis of law which is the particular and concrete determination of it in especially in matters concerning the common good. Yes, there is such a thing as immoral speech. Slander is an obvious example. Lies. But what should be subject to the law? That is a prudential question. And the 1st amendment is interpreted to some extent according to more or less prudential considerations.
The 1st amendment defines the law. It doesn't deal with morality because what is moral changes from generation to generation or from one party in power to the next. Its for this reason that the 1st amendment is so important. Morality changes all the time, the freedom to speak your mind on any topic should not.
Just because a document is written 250 years ago doesn't make it a 'bad' document.
Why the fuck do I care what the laws in Australia are when I don't live in Australia. you should see how govts interpret the "morality" or "offending" clauses in nation-states like India and Egypt to give themselves more power and arrest dissidents.
Why the fuck do I care what the laws in Australia are when I don't live in Australia. you should see how govts interpret the "morality" or "offending" clauses in nation-states like India and Egypt to give themselves more power and arrest dissidents.
Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment
Lol, USAian moment, how about the other 7.7 billion of us?
Lol, USAian moment, how about the other 7.7 billion of us?
I hope people elsewhere don't have the same bullshit pseudo debates we have in usa...
> Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence...
Granted that there is an overreaction happening but that seems largely in response to a rather hostile approach from that community. “If you deadname me I’ll have you banned”. “If you refuse to use my pronouns I’ll have you fired.” “If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you”.
This is no way to solve problems in a free society. Let’s trans people be trans. And let people who think there are only two genders think that. Forcing a set of beliefs or values on people is exactly what we should be trying to avoid.
Granted that there is an overreaction happening but that seems largely in response to a rather hostile approach from that community. “If you deadname me I’ll have you banned”. “If you refuse to use my pronouns I’ll have you fired.” “If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you”.
This is no way to solve problems in a free society. Let’s trans people be trans. And let people who think there are only two genders think that. Forcing a set of beliefs or values on people is exactly what we should be trying to avoid.
>If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you
is my drag not free speech too? If one insults me (or says something to me I consider insulting), I should be allowed to insult them right back, right?
is my drag not free speech too? If one insults me (or says something to me I consider insulting), I should be allowed to insult them right back, right?
Yes. I’m just pointing out that what I see as the backlash against trans (which is often unhinged) is simply a response to trans activism, which is likewise unhinged. And that, suppressing the speech of either of those groups is a bad idea.
>If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech",
Not in the United States.
Matal v Tam
>>Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."
----
remember, at one point it was considered 'harmful' be a majority whites for us browns/blacks to express our civil rights. Just because a majority goes "this is bad" doesn't mean it necessarily is.
Not in the United States.
Matal v Tam
>>Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."
----
remember, at one point it was considered 'harmful' be a majority whites for us browns/blacks to express our civil rights. Just because a majority goes "this is bad" doesn't mean it necessarily is.
It doesn't matter if words affect you. Threats are illegal, go ahead and prosecute. Disrespect is and should be legally protected. Government cannot, will not, and should not be in the position of making people like or be nice to you. People should be nice to each other but it is not the government's job to enforce this.
Nobody's rights extend to government banning speech that isn't supportive. No speech suppresses anybody else's.
Free speech isn't about "free speech for people who say things I support".
I'm tired of authoritarians pretending to be liberal.
Nobody's rights extend to government banning speech that isn't supportive. No speech suppresses anybody else's.
Free speech isn't about "free speech for people who say things I support".
I'm tired of authoritarians pretending to be liberal.
>I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do
Why?
>Some speech suppresses the speech of others.
No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone.
>it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy? How do you feel about those who post on Reddit or Facebook that they are playing it? How do you feel about game reviewers publishing evaluations?
>and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit
I think I got the answers to my questions.
Why?
>Some speech suppresses the speech of others.
No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone.
>it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy? How do you feel about those who post on Reddit or Facebook that they are playing it? How do you feel about game reviewers publishing evaluations?
>and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit
I think I got the answers to my questions.
> Why?
why are you compelled to respond to me? why do you listen to anyone? why speak at all?
> No speech can ever suppress that of others
Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. Or if you want a more subtle example, try talking to a minority group about microaggressions and what situations they feel safe to speak freely in. If you are in a minority group but don't feel oppressed in that way, I'm sure you have a peer who does.
> how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy?
Truly a nonsequitor but since you asked nicely: the developers were paid to do a job, no shame in that. JKR is a bigot who filled that world with inescapable racism and the design lead ran a youtube channel that pushed some bigotted views about feminism and "sjws". Im too exhausted to care who plays it although personally think its easier on the conscience to not. Reviews are fine, but if you wanna talk about separating art and artist and media crit's place in that, its a long nuanced discussion
I think that's my main frustration. No discussion of free speech is ever allowed to be nuanced. Disagreeing with Free Speech absolutism is impossible to argue with because to say that "sometimes bigotry should be discouraged" is seen as an affront to the idea of speech itself.
why are you compelled to respond to me? why do you listen to anyone? why speak at all?
> No speech can ever suppress that of others
Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. Or if you want a more subtle example, try talking to a minority group about microaggressions and what situations they feel safe to speak freely in. If you are in a minority group but don't feel oppressed in that way, I'm sure you have a peer who does.
> how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy?
Truly a nonsequitor but since you asked nicely: the developers were paid to do a job, no shame in that. JKR is a bigot who filled that world with inescapable racism and the design lead ran a youtube channel that pushed some bigotted views about feminism and "sjws". Im too exhausted to care who plays it although personally think its easier on the conscience to not. Reviews are fine, but if you wanna talk about separating art and artist and media crit's place in that, its a long nuanced discussion
I think that's my main frustration. No discussion of free speech is ever allowed to be nuanced. Disagreeing with Free Speech absolutism is impossible to argue with because to say that "sometimes bigotry should be discouraged" is seen as an affront to the idea of speech itself.
> Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat.
That is weakness and the 2nd amendment is a tool to fight back and secure ones self against death threats.
Get strapped, stand up and say "try it mother fucker".
Defy your oppressor, or be crushed under their tyranny.
That is weakness and the 2nd amendment is a tool to fight back and secure ones self against death threats.
Get strapped, stand up and say "try it mother fucker".
Defy your oppressor, or be crushed under their tyranny.
responding with violence is also "being affected by words". It also enforces the point that words can incite violence.
Where was the violence in that response? It is merely preparation for threatened violence. Any violence must be done in response to only violence, especially if you want to stay out of jail.
Hasanabi refuses to stream Hogwarts game because he doesn't want to be bullied off twitch.
>and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article
Well, yeah, if that’s what you choose to do.
That’s the whole point: you can choose to absorb the information, or not. You can choose to take offense, or not.
Well, yeah, if that’s what you choose to do.
That’s the whole point: you can choose to absorb the information, or not. You can choose to take offense, or not.
Respect is earned, not given.
There is a strange hypocrisy to your post. In my experience, I have seen respectful and compassionate critics of the very notion of transgenderism shouted down, ridiculed, attacked verbally, and so on merely for asking questions or pointing out what they see as problems or presuppositions they believe are incoherent. It is as if they are expected to shut up and accept without question the position you hold. Is that what you are proposing? Are you claiming that gender theory is beyond question? Do you require everyone to agree with its claims and play along?
> Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Would you agree to having blatantly, but shall we say genteel Nazi or white supremacist academics on campus? You would likely answer in the negative based on what you've written because you would, I infer, see their works as violent and threatening speech, speech that might also reduce the number of voices at the table. But that would make what is acceptable speech depend on what people find violent and threatening. But which people? Which table? In the case of gender theory, you acknowledge this concerns a minority. Are you suggesting that a minority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? If not, are you suggesting that a majority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? Is either of those acceptable? What exactly are you proposing here because it certainly seems like you are manipulatively trying to force your own speech norms on everyone else through the use of grievance. Should your sense of grievance become the basis of law or social norms? Imagine what would happen if we treated that kind of norm consistently. We couldn't, could we, and not just for practical reasons, but in principle.
I would go further. Liberalism as the philosophical and even theological position that informs the constitution and the very founding of the United States is truly very fatally flawed. The very notion of liberal neutrality is extremely problematic. There is no such thing as a neutral position. And so what liberalism effectively does, in an intellectually dishonest way, is it presents its own position as neutral and therefore beyond criticism. "Oh, yes, well, liberalism can accommodate everything, it can tolerate all positions, and allows the brotherhood of man to live together in harmony". Yes, all positions...that subordinate themselves to liberal norms and conform to its rather fleshy expectations. Liberalism is a definite position and its tyranny rests to a great degree on the pretense of this public neutrality, that all else is a private footnote added to the purity of this accommodating 'neutrality'. At least the mullahs are more honest.
(Btw, D. C. Schindler talks more about this in his book "The Politics of the Real" [0]. The arguments require some philosophical sophistication, but that's the point. Liberalism isn't the obvious truth. It's just the water we western fish have been swimming in and have formed habituated biases toward and favorable but vague associations with. There is much that is untenable with the liberal project, and as with many intellectual errors, it can take time for the abstract consequences to manifest in all their concrete and ugly glory.)
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Real-D-C-Schindler/dp/173650...
> Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Would you agree to having blatantly, but shall we say genteel Nazi or white supremacist academics on campus? You would likely answer in the negative based on what you've written because you would, I infer, see their works as violent and threatening speech, speech that might also reduce the number of voices at the table. But that would make what is acceptable speech depend on what people find violent and threatening. But which people? Which table? In the case of gender theory, you acknowledge this concerns a minority. Are you suggesting that a minority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? If not, are you suggesting that a majority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? Is either of those acceptable? What exactly are you proposing here because it certainly seems like you are manipulatively trying to force your own speech norms on everyone else through the use of grievance. Should your sense of grievance become the basis of law or social norms? Imagine what would happen if we treated that kind of norm consistently. We couldn't, could we, and not just for practical reasons, but in principle.
I would go further. Liberalism as the philosophical and even theological position that informs the constitution and the very founding of the United States is truly very fatally flawed. The very notion of liberal neutrality is extremely problematic. There is no such thing as a neutral position. And so what liberalism effectively does, in an intellectually dishonest way, is it presents its own position as neutral and therefore beyond criticism. "Oh, yes, well, liberalism can accommodate everything, it can tolerate all positions, and allows the brotherhood of man to live together in harmony". Yes, all positions...that subordinate themselves to liberal norms and conform to its rather fleshy expectations. Liberalism is a definite position and its tyranny rests to a great degree on the pretense of this public neutrality, that all else is a private footnote added to the purity of this accommodating 'neutrality'. At least the mullahs are more honest.
(Btw, D. C. Schindler talks more about this in his book "The Politics of the Real" [0]. The arguments require some philosophical sophistication, but that's the point. Liberalism isn't the obvious truth. It's just the water we western fish have been swimming in and have formed habituated biases toward and favorable but vague associations with. There is much that is untenable with the liberal project, and as with many intellectual errors, it can take time for the abstract consequences to manifest in all their concrete and ugly glory.)
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Real-D-C-Schindler/dp/173650...
I wrote a long thoughtful response to this but then YC crashed as I tried to post it. The gist was: Im not offering a solution, I just want some acknowledgement that there are harmful voices. we can bicker about who they are, but we need tools for dealing with them. And no the government shouldnt be the ones to wield them.
Also your tangent on liberalism is gibberish
Also your tangent on liberalism is gibberish
I'm torn because on one hand, having been intimately acquainted with a trans person who suffered greatly, and having heard from them what their internal voice told them in duress (e.g., that they were "actually delusional", "trying to trick others", "convincing no one", and other harmful but thoroughly implanted negative self-talk), I would absolutely start a fight with someone for certain kinds of statements, especially in the presence of someone I expected had negative self-talk similar to what was being said about them. From that angle I agree that speech can be violent. I can also see it being exhausting, because I doubt there is an end to individuals willing to say such things. I could see that feeling like a Sisyphean trial.
At the same time, I think most speech that comes across this way is the product of ignorance or unmet emotional needs, and if you listen to people that say hateful things they will often weaken their view as soon as they realize you plan to actually listen to them and understand how they feel. Because of this, I recognize my instinct to start a fight as a result of how I feel, and not necessarily a productive course of action, and often results in worse outcomes (people doubling down, taking an angry response as justification of their action, etc). I also find that this builds trust, which is necessary for good faith conversation.
My real problem with 'speech as violence' comes down to the difference between moralizing and compassion; I believe that compassion will produce better outcomes. Further if it is about morality you have to decide the correct morality, and it is impossible to get actual agreement on that. If you did you would have someone disagreeing to test if you would allow them to think differently than you without attacking them.
There are indeed people that say vile shit to hurt others intentionally, for various reasons from demotivating someone competing with them, to sadism, to bullying (which I find is often someone who believes 'bad people should be punished' and that someone has done something 'socially bad' so that it is 'up to them to correct it'). For example, When a sibling of mine wore something that might be associated with being gay, he received harsh criticism from another sibling I knew cared about him. The criticizing sibling had been bullied, and believed his statements would dissuade what he saw as a social misstep. It was a failure of compassion. The form of the criticism was also exactly what the criticized sibling had thought about himself.
I've also found that sometimes when my first thought was 'wow this person is a terrible person', it turned out that they thought that other people thought there were a terrible person, and so they stopped trying to do things that might prevent that effect, causing more people to think it, causing them to care less, or possibly even say provocative things with resent. If you listen to such a person and sympathize with them - however hard it may be, even if you don't agree with them, it can completely break the script they are expecting to hear, and lacking a prepared response, you may get an actually vulnerable one.
Really, I think as soon as morals come up, and rightness or wrongness, empathy has failed. And it is hard because empathizing with people that have different backgrounds and views is really hard. People will talk about empathy all day long, but I rarely see anyone really willing to empathize with someone who is narcissistic or abusive, someone who lacks all social skills as an adult and is smug that they are well paid in spite of it, or someone who believes radially different on any topic to really care about. Can any of us sympathize really with someone who thinks learning programming is a waste of time and we should all learn 'real skills' like how to read a balance sheet or run a meeting? Or someone that believes SOAP is the greatest thing that has even happened and people complaining about it just don't get it? That JavaScript is the most consistently designed language that has even existed and should have monuments built in its honor? That open-source software is a communist fad that harms markets and shouldn't be legal?
For me, when someone plays music from their phone speakers on public transport it is very difficult for me to sympathize. When someone cuts my spouse off in traffic, they immediate cuss up a storm. When a relative makes a political statement that is a bit tasteless and you know they just skimmed a news article and have no idea what they are talking about, it can be difficult.
But I think people get it backwards when they think it is difficult and it is all these peoples fault. Fault is a moral determination. Really, it is imaginary. It is a fiction that helps society run smoothly.
I will share, to aid my point, an error I have made. The first is that when I was in HS, I littered soda cans, mostly to emphasize that I didn't care about rules or anything (what a silly time that was). Then one day I saw someone picking up trash, including something I had dropped that had blown aside. When I saw that, I felt really hurt, guilty and sad. To know that I had done that. To this day, I pick up every piece of trash I come across and carry it until I see a trash can. It was a bad thing to do, but if the person picking up the trash had come up to me and yelled at me, telling me I was a lazy piece of shit, that I didn't care about anyone else, etc. I think I would have had a very different experience, and a very different response.
I sincerely believe, and hope, that many of these individuals who make these comments have the potential to be the ones that later go to the greatest efforts to repair damage they see themselves as causing. But for this to happen, I think they need to feel it as guilt (internally and based on empathy), instead of as shame (externally, and based on moral error). And for that to happen they need to feel heard, and they need to be engaged with emotionally.
At the same time, I think most speech that comes across this way is the product of ignorance or unmet emotional needs, and if you listen to people that say hateful things they will often weaken their view as soon as they realize you plan to actually listen to them and understand how they feel. Because of this, I recognize my instinct to start a fight as a result of how I feel, and not necessarily a productive course of action, and often results in worse outcomes (people doubling down, taking an angry response as justification of their action, etc). I also find that this builds trust, which is necessary for good faith conversation.
My real problem with 'speech as violence' comes down to the difference between moralizing and compassion; I believe that compassion will produce better outcomes. Further if it is about morality you have to decide the correct morality, and it is impossible to get actual agreement on that. If you did you would have someone disagreeing to test if you would allow them to think differently than you without attacking them.
There are indeed people that say vile shit to hurt others intentionally, for various reasons from demotivating someone competing with them, to sadism, to bullying (which I find is often someone who believes 'bad people should be punished' and that someone has done something 'socially bad' so that it is 'up to them to correct it'). For example, When a sibling of mine wore something that might be associated with being gay, he received harsh criticism from another sibling I knew cared about him. The criticizing sibling had been bullied, and believed his statements would dissuade what he saw as a social misstep. It was a failure of compassion. The form of the criticism was also exactly what the criticized sibling had thought about himself.
I've also found that sometimes when my first thought was 'wow this person is a terrible person', it turned out that they thought that other people thought there were a terrible person, and so they stopped trying to do things that might prevent that effect, causing more people to think it, causing them to care less, or possibly even say provocative things with resent. If you listen to such a person and sympathize with them - however hard it may be, even if you don't agree with them, it can completely break the script they are expecting to hear, and lacking a prepared response, you may get an actually vulnerable one.
Really, I think as soon as morals come up, and rightness or wrongness, empathy has failed. And it is hard because empathizing with people that have different backgrounds and views is really hard. People will talk about empathy all day long, but I rarely see anyone really willing to empathize with someone who is narcissistic or abusive, someone who lacks all social skills as an adult and is smug that they are well paid in spite of it, or someone who believes radially different on any topic to really care about. Can any of us sympathize really with someone who thinks learning programming is a waste of time and we should all learn 'real skills' like how to read a balance sheet or run a meeting? Or someone that believes SOAP is the greatest thing that has even happened and people complaining about it just don't get it? That JavaScript is the most consistently designed language that has even existed and should have monuments built in its honor? That open-source software is a communist fad that harms markets and shouldn't be legal?
For me, when someone plays music from their phone speakers on public transport it is very difficult for me to sympathize. When someone cuts my spouse off in traffic, they immediate cuss up a storm. When a relative makes a political statement that is a bit tasteless and you know they just skimmed a news article and have no idea what they are talking about, it can be difficult.
But I think people get it backwards when they think it is difficult and it is all these peoples fault. Fault is a moral determination. Really, it is imaginary. It is a fiction that helps society run smoothly.
I will share, to aid my point, an error I have made. The first is that when I was in HS, I littered soda cans, mostly to emphasize that I didn't care about rules or anything (what a silly time that was). Then one day I saw someone picking up trash, including something I had dropped that had blown aside. When I saw that, I felt really hurt, guilty and sad. To know that I had done that. To this day, I pick up every piece of trash I come across and carry it until I see a trash can. It was a bad thing to do, but if the person picking up the trash had come up to me and yelled at me, telling me I was a lazy piece of shit, that I didn't care about anyone else, etc. I think I would have had a very different experience, and a very different response.
I sincerely believe, and hope, that many of these individuals who make these comments have the potential to be the ones that later go to the greatest efforts to repair damage they see themselves as causing. But for this to happen, I think they need to feel it as guilt (internally and based on empathy), instead of as shame (externally, and based on moral error). And for that to happen they need to feel heard, and they need to be engaged with emotionally.
I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics.
Everyday on the internet I see White people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of White people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these neo-Nazi cons trying to cancel us are the real gulag runners". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize majority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
Everyday on the internet I see White people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of White people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these neo-Nazi cons trying to cancel us are the real gulag runners". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize majority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
Just because it is literally possible to type a sentence, doesn't make it true...
I'm not sure what point you think you are demonstrating past that.
I'm not sure what point you think you are demonstrating past that.
You're almost there!
This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.
This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.
Oh, I get it. You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless? Shocking that you are being smarmy about it, but I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.
>Oh, I get it.
WHOOSH! No you don't.
>You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless?
They're not arbitrary, nor were they inserted.
>Shocking that you are being smarmy about it,
IMAX-level projection.
>I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.
/r/selfawarewolves gold.
WHOOSH! No you don't.
>You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless?
They're not arbitrary, nor were they inserted.
>Shocking that you are being smarmy about it,
IMAX-level projection.
>I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.
/r/selfawarewolves gold.
It's not even an argument, it's a rhetorical fallacy. There really is no good reason for you to conduct yourself this way.
>It's not even an argument, it's a rhetorical fallacy
It is an argument, and it's not a rhetorical fallacy.
>There really is no good reason for you to conduct yourself this way.
Maybe I was being a bit much.
It is an argument, and it's not a rhetorical fallacy.
>There really is no good reason for you to conduct yourself this way.
Maybe I was being a bit much.
>Maybe I was being a bit much.
I'd recommend that you use your own words to communicate your point, not others'. It's not doing you the favors you seem to think it is, especially if you are taking the position that you have contributed an argument to the discussion.
I'd recommend that you use your own words to communicate your point, not others'. It's not doing you the favors you seem to think it is, especially if you are taking the position that you have contributed an argument to the discussion.
you could have said "I know you are but what am I" and it would've been easier and have the same effect
nuance is dead and internet comment sections killed it
nuance is dead and internet comment sections killed it
>you could have said "I know you are but what am I" and it would've been easier and have the same ef
nuance is dead and internet comment sections killed it
This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.
nuance is dead and internet comment sections killed it
This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.
> maximizing the number of voices at the table
The easiest way of doing so is to maximise the number of humans on the planet. Those who engage, and promote reproduction organ destruction whether surgical or chemical, do the exact opposite and decrease the number of voices -- in the long run to zero.
The easiest way of doing so is to maximise the number of humans on the planet. Those who engage, and promote reproduction organ destruction whether surgical or chemical, do the exact opposite and decrease the number of voices -- in the long run to zero.
this is the most disingenuous response i've ever seen
> most disingenuous response i've ever seen
Promoters of sex-deception and concomitant fertility destruction, typically seem to communicate in a way that is (1) a refusal to address substantial points, (2) adversarial hyperbole, and (3) refusal to engage in any kind rational argument that could lead to mutually beneficial truth-seeking and learning.
I'm sure that you agree that the quoted sentence above confirms those patterns? Can I invite you to reflect on why we see this pattern?
Promoters of sex-deception and concomitant fertility destruction, typically seem to communicate in a way that is (1) a refusal to address substantial points, (2) adversarial hyperbole, and (3) refusal to engage in any kind rational argument that could lead to mutually beneficial truth-seeking and learning.
I'm sure that you agree that the quoted sentence above confirms those patterns? Can I invite you to reflect on why we see this pattern?
Not so long ago, bodily punishments were considered fully acceptable, or even beneficial. So the distinction against physical violence which this article paints as clear, is in fact a recent development. Which may or may not continue further.
[deleted]
Being liberal in the 90’s meant defending controversial or disruptive speech on the premises of the mantra, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.” This principle operated as a liberal self-preservation tactic. The Church had more influence in society than it does today, and if anyone was going to challenge the status quo, it had to be liberals. Hip hop music, feminist art, raunchy daytime television, and that nasty George Carlin all played a role in challenging the modesty that the Church wanted to preserve.
Decades passed. The church lost most of its mainstream power. Raytheon began marketing itself as a diverse workplace. Goldman Sachs marched in parades with rainbow flags. The question of gay marriage was settled. As society liberalized, liberals found themselves usurping the role of cultural hall monitor. It became disadvantageous for liberals to defend controversial speech, so new rationales had to be created to prevent the spread of anti-liberal ideas.
Decades passed. The church lost most of its mainstream power. Raytheon began marketing itself as a diverse workplace. Goldman Sachs marched in parades with rainbow flags. The question of gay marriage was settled. As society liberalized, liberals found themselves usurping the role of cultural hall monitor. It became disadvantageous for liberals to defend controversial speech, so new rationales had to be created to prevent the spread of anti-liberal ideas.
Maybe there's something to that, but I think the main thing that happened was that we developed incredible new technology that allowed all of humanity to communicate openly in real time on an equal footing without gatekeepers or censorship. Then we looked at it and decided we didn't like it.
>Then we looked at it and decided we didn't like it.
People were given the ability to seek out an unlimited reservoir of offensive content and decided they like it.
They like being outraged, They like feeling the martyr, They like to hate.
The overwhelming majority of offensive content is sought out and distributed by the offended.
Im sure there are detailed biological and social descriptions of why, but at the end of day, it is because people want to be offended.
It is quite a sad state of affairs.
People were given the ability to seek out an unlimited reservoir of offensive content and decided they like it.
They like being outraged, They like feeling the martyr, They like to hate.
The overwhelming majority of offensive content is sought out and distributed by the offended.
Im sure there are detailed biological and social descriptions of why, but at the end of day, it is because people want to be offended.
It is quite a sad state of affairs.
I really liked it. I think people have already forgotten how it was without these things. It was also predicted for years that small mindedness will become an enemy to such advancements.
You're posting this on a heavily moderated forum with multiple censoring methods.
Yes, but HN “works” because it is a small-ish community with principled moderators and generally well-educated people. The community guidelines request that commenters assume the best intentions in others. I’ve been in enough heavily-censored forums, groups, and websites to say that too much moderation can be worse than too little.
Which you're telling me because....?
Indeed. Every single sacred universalist principle liberals claimed to hold sacred is simply a cudgel to get you to do what they want.
Appeals to democracy, rule of law, freedom of association, freedom of speech, equal rights, human rights, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, bodily autonomy etc. - all of these things vanish like a mist if the left decide that they hate you, and you deserve it.
Appeals to democracy, rule of law, freedom of association, freedom of speech, equal rights, human rights, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, bodily autonomy etc. - all of these things vanish like a mist if the left decide that they hate you, and you deserve it.
Liberals and “the left” are two different things.
Although violent speech may seem hard to swallow, the alternative of censorship has been shown throughout history to be far more detrimental. It seems that the younger generation has not fully understood this fact, but hopefully they will come to understand it through the lessons of others, rather than through their own experiences.
> Although violent speech is unacceptable
speech inciting violence is unacceptable. Speech isn't by it's nature violent--although it might be called forceful--and I would refrain from ever calling speech violent.
(and even speech inciting violence turns out to be acceptable to a majority of people in conditions where you say you want to kill (for example) a pedophile or a racist, or when you're writing a Declaration of Independence or a French National Anthem (La Marseillaise) because everybody agrees, the Tree of Liberty must periodically be watered by the blood of tyrants!)
my comment is a little bit all over the place, but what I'm trying to say is, you should never agree to call speech violence but always put in the word "incite/ment"; and at the same time it's difficult to make any broad or universal statements about speech without discovering it's a complex subject. Humans are good at imagination or conceptualizing hypotheticals, and we have the capacity for violence, so it's very difficult to say what someone can and can't say, usually the listener understands implicitly but sometimes the person listening does not have your interstests at heart, has their own motives, or is plain nutso.
speech inciting violence is unacceptable. Speech isn't by it's nature violent--although it might be called forceful--and I would refrain from ever calling speech violent.
(and even speech inciting violence turns out to be acceptable to a majority of people in conditions where you say you want to kill (for example) a pedophile or a racist, or when you're writing a Declaration of Independence or a French National Anthem (La Marseillaise) because everybody agrees, the Tree of Liberty must periodically be watered by the blood of tyrants!)
my comment is a little bit all over the place, but what I'm trying to say is, you should never agree to call speech violence but always put in the word "incite/ment"; and at the same time it's difficult to make any broad or universal statements about speech without discovering it's a complex subject. Humans are good at imagination or conceptualizing hypotheticals, and we have the capacity for violence, so it's very difficult to say what someone can and can't say, usually the listener understands implicitly but sometimes the person listening does not have your interstests at heart, has their own motives, or is plain nutso.
History has shown us repeatedly - the next generation will only learn when the heel of the boot they cheer for is crushing their own throats.
Has it? I see censorship as being extremely successful nowadays. It seems to keep the world together nowadays. Imagine we’d publish everything we know, many people would oppose.
As noted (and then, weirdly, disagreed with) in the article, you have to make a clear delineation between speech that is offensive and speech that is abusive. And that is not always an easy distinction to make!
Repeatedly using slurs is abusive, but what if the majority of people don't see it as a slur? If your answer is "then it's not a slur", then what do you think of the frequent use of the N-word in the first half of the 20th century?
Is it abusive to repeatedly and baselessly accuse an entire group of child abuse ("grooming")?
If you repeatedly attend community gatherings to repeat speech that is deliberately offensive to that community, does that rise to the level of abuse?
These are reasonable questions that we tend to just skip over when we talk about "cancel culture" and those who are characterized, fairly or unfairly, as victims of it.
Repeatedly using slurs is abusive, but what if the majority of people don't see it as a slur? If your answer is "then it's not a slur", then what do you think of the frequent use of the N-word in the first half of the 20th century?
Is it abusive to repeatedly and baselessly accuse an entire group of child abuse ("grooming")?
If you repeatedly attend community gatherings to repeat speech that is deliberately offensive to that community, does that rise to the level of abuse?
These are reasonable questions that we tend to just skip over when we talk about "cancel culture" and those who are characterized, fairly or unfairly, as victims of it.
abusive speech isnt illegal either
Which is not to the parent comment’s point anyway.
Then maybe I missed the point of the comparison. Why would we care if speech is considered abusive of not?
From the perspective of the article, hurtful speech (abuse), is and always will be subject to the interpretation of the listener. As such it will always change with time and context.
Anything can be interpreted as abusive speech at any time. It is not a consensus definition.
From the perspective of the article, hurtful speech (abuse), is and always will be subject to the interpretation of the listener. As such it will always change with time and context.
Anything can be interpreted as abusive speech at any time. It is not a consensus definition.
The kinds of censorship that really bothers me is when people like Ron deSantis use the power of the state to force people like university professors to say specific things and muzzle them from saying other things. That's actual government censorship.
Education standards are normal.
Simple question do we agree we don't need a middle school teacher explaining in graphic detail how to have sex? Or maybe "alternative" theory like flat earth?
If not I don't know how we reach a common ground if we agree though maybe just maybe we can agree that teacher shouldn't be teaching certain things at certain ages and not call that "censorship". You might disagree what ages or things but still.
A teacher isn't there to instill their values or beliefs into a child but to teach the curriculum.
Simple question do we agree we don't need a middle school teacher explaining in graphic detail how to have sex? Or maybe "alternative" theory like flat earth?
If not I don't know how we reach a common ground if we agree though maybe just maybe we can agree that teacher shouldn't be teaching certain things at certain ages and not call that "censorship". You might disagree what ages or things but still.
A teacher isn't there to instill their values or beliefs into a child but to teach the curriculum.
Abstinence only education is known to not work, so unless your want to end up with a bunch of pregnant teenagers who think porn accurately depicts sex, having school teachers explain how sex works seems like the only reasonable conclusion. The only question then is at what age. Middle school starts off at 10-years old seems a bit young to me for graphic descriptions of sex. It is certainly old enough to have already learnt about what inappropriate touching is and what relationships are, though. Age 14, which is at the end of middle school seems like a reasonable age though.
What age do you think is reasonable for schools to be teaching sex? Explicitly, how to use a condom, and the inaccuracies of porn.
What age do you think is reasonable for schools to be teaching sex? Explicitly, how to use a condom, and the inaccuracies of porn.
> What age do you think is reasonable for schools to be teaching sex? Explicitly, how to use a condom, and the inaccuracies of porn.
I'm not going to play along with your attempt to deflect from your failure to answer. The specific age we choose doesn't really matter that much in the context of our discussion and you know that.
I'm not going to play along with your attempt to deflect from your failure to answer. The specific age we choose doesn't really matter that much in the context of our discussion and you know that.
Those professors and teachers are employees of the government. Like it or not, that puts them under the same umbrella as police officers, fire fighters, and others. Government employees are very much restricted in what they can say and do when they are on the clock.
Amazing how quickly people will pivot to "actually, it's ok to censor campus professors" as soon as the censored ideas are ones they don't like.
It's amazing how quickly people will pivot to "censorship of professors" when they are talking about laws that control the curriculum of elementary schools.
I don't dislike professors or teachers at state schools, but I understand that they work in an institution that effectively does not offer academic freedom. If you are a professor, you can work at any other institution in the country, other than the 50-100 or so that are run by states, and you will have all the academic freedom you want. If this country goes to a major war, a large number of those professors are likely going to be told to work on something war-related, because they are agents of the state.
If you are a teacher, who was actually targeted by the education control bills in FL, you arguably don't have enough training to have really have earned academic freedom. Until about 5 minutes ago, nobody argued that they did have academic freedom. Curricula are there for a reason.
I don't dislike professors or teachers at state schools, but I understand that they work in an institution that effectively does not offer academic freedom. If you are a professor, you can work at any other institution in the country, other than the 50-100 or so that are run by states, and you will have all the academic freedom you want. If this country goes to a major war, a large number of those professors are likely going to be told to work on something war-related, because they are agents of the state.
If you are a teacher, who was actually targeted by the education control bills in FL, you arguably don't have enough training to have really have earned academic freedom. Until about 5 minutes ago, nobody argued that they did have academic freedom. Curricula are there for a reason.
> the 50-100 or so that are run by states
FWIW, I think you're off by an order of magnitude, more or less.
FWIW, I think you're off by an order of magnitude, more or less.
no it doesn't, technically sure but universities are suppose to be free from controlled speech like this. see why tenure and academic freedom exist
Academic freedom is not a legal concept, and unfortunately the law trumps the ideals in this case. However, academic freedom isn't exactly unlimited: a tenured physics professor who doesn't teach a class on physics, publish a paper on physics, or advise a student for 10 years will likely be fired at most institutions (unless they have a nobel prize or something). Professors working at state schools have additional limits on their academic freedom. This is why you don't tend to see theology departments at state schools.
Also, in practice, you could reasonably argue that there generally isn't much academic freedom in most fields, since most research is grant-funded, and that is controlled by (usually) governments.
Also, in practice, you could reasonably argue that there generally isn't much academic freedom in most fields, since most research is grant-funded, and that is controlled by (usually) governments.
Can you give an example of compelled speech?
"In this case, the Court ruled that a state cannot force children to stand, salute the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The justices held that school children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, for religious reasons, had a First Amendment right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the U.S. flag."
This and other examples here:
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-s...
This was one in Canada recently.
"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible."
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...
This and other examples here:
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-s...
This was one in Canada recently.
"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible."
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...
"Today, Florida honeymoon registry company Honeyfund.com, along with workplace diversity consultancy Collective Concepts and its co-founder Chevara Orrin filed a federal lawsuit to block enforcement of Florida’s HB 7, the Stop WOKE Act. The law purports to “fight back against woke indoctrination” by, among other things, barring employers from engaging in speech that “advances” certain “concepts” regarding race, sex, religion or national origin. The suit names Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Florida officials as defendants and challenges the statute as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments for barring the expression of viewpoints disfavored by government officials and chilling a wide range of speech in workplaces. "
This is barring them from saying specific things, not compelling them to say other things, do you have an example of any compelled speech?
I should have been clearer: you said Ron DeSantis was using the power of the state to force university professors to say things. I was after a citation for that claim.
where in the 5000 word article does it talk about compelled speech, I skimmed it and searched and I don't see anything.
"Speech is violence" doesn't exist as a principle in modern western societies. It's a slogan and call for a coordinated mass political attack against an identified target.
It is applied by political partisans to attack their enemies and not applied to themselves or their allies.
It's cynical, crass, mass political power put into action. Reluctant participants are dragged along under the implied threat that they will be targeted because "inaction is complicity" or some similar slogan.
It is applied by political partisans to attack their enemies and not applied to themselves or their allies.
It's cynical, crass, mass political power put into action. Reluctant participants are dragged along under the implied threat that they will be targeted because "inaction is complicity" or some similar slogan.
I've been told that not only is my speech violence, but so is my silence.
[deleted]
Who exactly is this article speaking to? Who right now is trying to put legal limitations on speech? Maybe Ron DeSantis? Most of the agitation against hate speech is not demanding formal punishment from a court. It's asking for platforms to choose not to amplify their messages. Or for the speakers to rethink their lives and choose to be different. The entire article is arguing against a point of view that doesn't really exist.
My interpretation is it's speaking to former bastions of "intellectual liberalism" (e.g. universities).
About what? Universities are supposed to educate. Hosting people with objectively wrong viewpoints isn't edifying. A history department isn't going to host a speaker who denied the Holocaust because they want a diversity of opinions. They are by their very nature going to be very selective about who speaks.
But should they expel students who are Holocaust deniers?
Judging by Reddit it definitely is, I am always shocked to see Reddit hivemind approving violent attacks on some racist spouting slurs, as if violence was appriopriate response to words. I don't expect anyhing better from HN crowd, they are not that different after all despite HN thinking they are on high horse.
"What many people failed to understand, and therefore failed to defend, is an unpleasant fact of intellectual liberalism: When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender."
A line that many people still can't handle.
A line that many people still can't handle.
It’s not that people expect compensation or punishment, it’s that as private citizens, we’re totally and completely free to judge the shit out of people for what they say and do.
I don’t expect the government to step in when someone says something hateful, but I do pay attention to which groups allow that kind of behavior in their associations and which don’t.
We all do have a right to leave the rooms hateful people are in, and the people in charge of those rooms (as long as its not the government) are free to control how their space gets used.
I don’t expect the government to step in when someone says something hateful, but I do pay attention to which groups allow that kind of behavior in their associations and which don’t.
We all do have a right to leave the rooms hateful people are in, and the people in charge of those rooms (as long as its not the government) are free to control how their space gets used.
This privileges the government as one of many organizations with outsized power.
Should we also restrict private, yet powerful, organizations from similar actions?
Clearly the article was considering various non-governmental institutions as places where liberal intellectualism are traditionally important and whether or not they should continue to have those values.
Should we also restrict private, yet powerful, organizations from similar actions?
Clearly the article was considering various non-governmental institutions as places where liberal intellectualism are traditionally important and whether or not they should continue to have those values.
It's entirely subjective. For instance, if you're a Christian, the Bible would have you beaten, stoned, amputated or killed for different types of speech deemed offensive to specific parties.
The US legal system also provides many avenues for punishing people based on their speech.
Most legal systems and most religions follow similar rules.
The US legal system also provides many avenues for punishing people based on their speech.
Most legal systems and most religions follow similar rules.
Liberalism in the broad sense and its attitude to speech suffer from a sort of dualism that's hinted at in the second part of the article. To maintain traditionally liberal views on speech you have to somehow convince yourself that speech and actions are different things.
But in reality there is no such distinction and I think in our information age that's become quite obvious. There's nothing privileged about speech, it need not even be human in origin any more. Speech acts are just a means to effect change in the world, it's information in a network directed towards certain ends akin to Klausewitz pointing out that war is just politics by other means. Violence and speech but more generally action and speech are materially the same thing, one is kinetic and the other isn't, but the goal is identical.
I think the same is true in regards to money. Speech has entirely been commoditized and it's produced the same conflict under liberal frameworks that violence has. If speech is reach then it is just power and doesn't live in some lofty magical mental space.
So the title is right, in liberal societies speech cannot be violence but this is just an instrumental claim to make liberalism work. In the same sense how John Locke had to adopt a Tabula Rasa/Blank Slate view of individuals to justify Natural Rights, which scientifically turns out to be just wrong.
But in reality there is no such distinction and I think in our information age that's become quite obvious. There's nothing privileged about speech, it need not even be human in origin any more. Speech acts are just a means to effect change in the world, it's information in a network directed towards certain ends akin to Klausewitz pointing out that war is just politics by other means. Violence and speech but more generally action and speech are materially the same thing, one is kinetic and the other isn't, but the goal is identical.
I think the same is true in regards to money. Speech has entirely been commoditized and it's produced the same conflict under liberal frameworks that violence has. If speech is reach then it is just power and doesn't live in some lofty magical mental space.
So the title is right, in liberal societies speech cannot be violence but this is just an instrumental claim to make liberalism work. In the same sense how John Locke had to adopt a Tabula Rasa/Blank Slate view of individuals to justify Natural Rights, which scientifically turns out to be just wrong.
It's interesting because in French, to speak literally translated would give something like "take the talk". (prendre la parole)
So when somebody speaks, he takes something with, I guess, the hidden assumption that he/she's preventing others from taking it.
[deleted]
Calling for violence is speech and sure as shit leads to violence.
In fact if we want to be intellectually honest speech should be recognized as a legitimate form of violence.
If you ever decide to do violence you’re going to be a lot more effective if you have a mob at your back.
To be clear I’m not calling for mob violence. I’m Just being intellectually honest. Speech is an effective tool in the execution of violence.
Whatever else your politics we can all agree that “Go to the capital and fight like hell” led to a mob attacking, entering and committing violence at the capital. It was certainly more effective than the speaker showing up personally with his fists up.
Was the speech itself violence? No. Did it directly encourage violence and then that violence happened? Yes. In that sense was it an effective orchestration of violence? Yep.
In fact if we want to be intellectually honest speech should be recognized as a legitimate form of violence.
If you ever decide to do violence you’re going to be a lot more effective if you have a mob at your back.
To be clear I’m not calling for mob violence. I’m Just being intellectually honest. Speech is an effective tool in the execution of violence.
Whatever else your politics we can all agree that “Go to the capital and fight like hell” led to a mob attacking, entering and committing violence at the capital. It was certainly more effective than the speaker showing up personally with his fists up.
Was the speech itself violence? No. Did it directly encourage violence and then that violence happened? Yes. In that sense was it an effective orchestration of violence? Yep.
I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We live in a world where the mechanisms of mass communication are held in private hands---there is no digital public square, regardless of what techno-libertarians might have you believe. So there are speech winners and there are speech losers, chosen generally by capital. If you want to change that and have a public platform, you'll have to consider the digital equivalent of communism. Until then, you'll have to live with mass suppression of speech just as you live with mass amplification of it. They are two sides of the same coin.
> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought
Well, they're literally doing this in the UK - people have and are being arrested for offensive speech.
Well, they're literally doing this in the UK - people have and are being arrested for offensive speech.
And sometimes fined, but also sometimes having their convictions overturned - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_Unit...
Not “literally” the same as assault charges though - “public order” laws have a long sordid history of their own.
Not “literally” the same as assault charges though - “public order” laws have a long sordid history of their own.
You can't really call it a marketplace of ideas, then, if your response is [metaphorically] a SLAPP. E.g. people weren't just critical of Justine Sacco, they tried to destroy her. Tell me again who the bad guys are?
So what you dislike is groups of people coordinating their speech, it appears. How is this any different from coordination using price signals?
So you're okay with mob justice, then? You feel pretty confident they'll never come for you?
The courteous response would be to answer my question rather than deflecting from it.
But since you ask, I am not okay with it in many contexts and my confidence estimates are applied to individual situations rather than being general. I have had experience of being attacked by mobs, both online and physically. I have scars from being kicked in the head and stabbed in the leg during such an attack. I've separately been arrested and jailed on specious charges over political activity (more than once) and obtained dismissal of charges in court. And I have been the target of both verbal and physical violence on many, many occasions, often both on the same occasion. So I come at this question with very extensive first hand knowledge of how such arguments can play out.
So now, would you care to respond to the question I asked: how do you think coordinated speech in a marketplace of ideas differs from coordination of buying or selling in response to price signals?
But since you ask, I am not okay with it in many contexts and my confidence estimates are applied to individual situations rather than being general. I have had experience of being attacked by mobs, both online and physically. I have scars from being kicked in the head and stabbed in the leg during such an attack. I've separately been arrested and jailed on specious charges over political activity (more than once) and obtained dismissal of charges in court. And I have been the target of both verbal and physical violence on many, many occasions, often both on the same occasion. So I come at this question with very extensive first hand knowledge of how such arguments can play out.
So now, would you care to respond to the question I asked: how do you think coordinated speech in a marketplace of ideas differs from coordination of buying or selling in response to price signals?
How should a marketplace of ideas work, then?
You attack the idea, not the person.
If you go after the person, you are not participating in any marketplace of ideas, you're now the one committing the violence.
If you go after the person, you are not participating in any marketplace of ideas, you're now the one committing the violence.
If you can lose your job for what you say, only the independently wealthy have freedom of speech.
Now you're getting it. Why do you think they call it "fuck you money?"
>While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime
When you prevent somebody from being on a platform, you also prevent others from hearing what that person has to say.
As for amplification, it is not amplification to show me your tweets with #stabledifussion when that is what I search for - it is the entire point of Twitter.
When you prevent somebody from being on a platform, you also prevent others from hearing what that person has to say.
As for amplification, it is not amplification to show me your tweets with #stabledifussion when that is what I search for - it is the entire point of Twitter.
It absolutely is amplification---without Twitter, there would be no tweet to search for. And never forget, the actual point of Twitter is to deliver value to its shareholders.
Twitter is now a private company, but that is besides the point, as it would only provide value to whomever owns it people use it, and they only do that if they can get access to what they value.
And no, to be amplification, Twitter would have to boost certain tweets artificially. It is very unartificial when I get results for searching. Otherwise it is also boosting if I use the municipal library to checkout a book, or buy it on Amazon, at which point amplification is meaningless.
And no, to be amplification, Twitter would have to boost certain tweets artificially. It is very unartificial when I get results for searching. Otherwise it is also boosting if I use the municipal library to checkout a book, or buy it on Amazon, at which point amplification is meaningless.
You're taking for granted the existence of communication services like Twitter. Twitter is amplification. You can't walk out your front door and give a speech that millions of people instantly have access to. You can only do that because of the existence of private services like Twitter. And the reality is that you have no inherent right to use those services, they can exclude you from them for any reason they like.
Libraries are also amplification, but they are generally public. When a book is banned from a library, it potentially violates the First Amendment. Twitter is not public, so when a user is banned from Twitter, the First Amendment does not apply.
If and when we have a government-operated Twitter, it will have to offer equal access to everyone, and it will have to tolerate any speech that falls under First Amendment protection. But until then, you'll have to live with the possibility that the private services you use will kick you off because they don't like what you say.
Libraries are also amplification, but they are generally public. When a book is banned from a library, it potentially violates the First Amendment. Twitter is not public, so when a user is banned from Twitter, the First Amendment does not apply.
If and when we have a government-operated Twitter, it will have to offer equal access to everyone, and it will have to tolerate any speech that falls under First Amendment protection. But until then, you'll have to live with the possibility that the private services you use will kick you off because they don't like what you say.
> They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas."
This is a really obvious idea that people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding, especially when the framing of the conversation drifts toward "cancel culture".
This is a really obvious idea that people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding, especially when the framing of the conversation drifts toward "cancel culture".
[deleted]
> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought
First off, they are. but if you are saying: loose your job and ability to make a living, losing your ability to speak in public, fuck me give me those charges then!
you are backing tyrannical ideas while trying to pretend you are just being reasonable.
First off, they are. but if you are saying: loose your job and ability to make a living, losing your ability to speak in public, fuck me give me those charges then!
you are backing tyrannical ideas while trying to pretend you are just being reasonable.
Someone reporting something you said to your employer: freedom of speech
Your employer declining to continue your employment: freedom of association
Advocating for a university to not host your talk: freedom of speech
A university not hosting your talk: freedom of association
and so on.
Your employer declining to continue your employment: freedom of association
Advocating for a university to not host your talk: freedom of speech
A university not hosting your talk: freedom of association
and so on.
You are right about this classification, but in my opinion freedom of association does need to be limited. Freedom of association is a right that people should have in their private life, but it is definitely not a right that government or government-funded public institutions (e.g. education) should have. Similarly the types of 'association' which are essential for basic life - namely, housing, employment and finance - already have various anti-discrimination laws that effectively assert that everyone should have equal access to these things and freedom of association is not an excuse to exclude people from these core needs.
In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc.
We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.
In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc.
We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.
So it's legal, but you're definitely the Bad Guy.
No u, since we've apparently abandoned argument in favor of just making claims.
Also, contacting someone's employer is far from a slam dunk freedom of speech case. It could easily run afoul of several criminal statutes, not to mention the obvious civil liability.
One more nail in the coffin for Internet anonymity.
One more nail in the coffin for Internet anonymity.
So, you do want some speech to be proscribed.
It's equivalent to saying you can have a gun you just will go to prison if you ever use it.
Being banned from Twitter is not going to prison, it's being kicked out of a private club.
The tyranny isn't coming from me, it's coming from the people that own the company that's firing you. And the "tyrannical idea" you're referring to is called capitalism, and it has its upsides and its downsides. Don't shoot the messenger.
It appears that you are engaging in a logical fallacy by utilizing capitalism, which I assume is not something you hold in high regard, to silence someone's perspective during a discussion and attributing the blame to capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are primarily owned and controlled by individuals and private companies rather than by the government or public institutions.
None of the things mentioned above are related to capitalism's coverage of free speech. It seems that your intention is to suppress those who hold differing opinions, and you are using the assumption that the silenced individuals support capitalism to justify your actions.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are primarily owned and controlled by individuals and private companies rather than by the government or public institutions.
None of the things mentioned above are related to capitalism's coverage of free speech. It seems that your intention is to suppress those who hold differing opinions, and you are using the assumption that the silenced individuals support capitalism to justify your actions.
A logical fallacy is a flawed argument that can be revealed by reasoning. For instance, someone suggesting that attributing blame to capitalism is a way to silence another's speech. That is a logical fallacy, because it omits any explanation of how such an attribution could silence another person. :-)
Seriously though, do you not see how private ownership of communication services impacts the question of who is allowed to use those services? And that if there were a truly public service, how that would dramatically change the situation with respect to First Amendment rights?
For the record, I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But it surprises me how many people don't understand that it has drawbacks, and that we should be honest with ourselves about those drawbacks. It's ok to say that you're pro-capitalism but that you also think that the Internet (or at least some of it) should be a public utility, for instance.
Seriously though, do you not see how private ownership of communication services impacts the question of who is allowed to use those services? And that if there were a truly public service, how that would dramatically change the situation with respect to First Amendment rights?
For the record, I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But it surprises me how many people don't understand that it has drawbacks, and that we should be honest with ourselves about those drawbacks. It's ok to say that you're pro-capitalism but that you also think that the Internet (or at least some of it) should be a public utility, for instance.
> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought.
Right. I can't think of anyone I have come across in liberal media. But you can always dig someone up that takes any given position.
> While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We live in a world where the mechanisms of mass communication are held in private hands---there is no digital public square, regardless of what techno-libertarians might have you believe.
All correct. The people who want it to be one way or the other (depending on their political leanings) usually are conflating constitutional protections from the government as being applicable to/from everyone and everything else.
If you're screaming on Twitter that (some racial group) is bad, and people tell you to shut up, they are allowed to do so under the first amendment. You're allowed to do so under the first amendment. Twitter can totally ban you based on what they deem acceptable behavior, because the first amendment doesn't regulate private companies (just the government).
If you're calling for the extermination of that particular group, the government can charge you under US Code for inciting violence:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
...But you have to prove intent, which is notoriously hard to do, and notoriously easy to get off scott-free from. ("I was being bombastic, I didn't think anyone would LITERALLY try and exterminate said group")
Right. I can't think of anyone I have come across in liberal media. But you can always dig someone up that takes any given position.
> While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We live in a world where the mechanisms of mass communication are held in private hands---there is no digital public square, regardless of what techno-libertarians might have you believe.
All correct. The people who want it to be one way or the other (depending on their political leanings) usually are conflating constitutional protections from the government as being applicable to/from everyone and everything else.
If you're screaming on Twitter that (some racial group) is bad, and people tell you to shut up, they are allowed to do so under the first amendment. You're allowed to do so under the first amendment. Twitter can totally ban you based on what they deem acceptable behavior, because the first amendment doesn't regulate private companies (just the government).
If you're calling for the extermination of that particular group, the government can charge you under US Code for inciting violence:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
...But you have to prove intent, which is notoriously hard to do, and notoriously easy to get off scott-free from. ("I was being bombastic, I didn't think anyone would LITERALLY try and exterminate said group")
> If you want to change that and have a public platform, you'll have to consider the digital equivalent of communism.
Or just like, new regulations on the giant corporations operating these services? No need to go as far as communism.
Or just like, new regulations on the giant corporations operating these services? No need to go as far as communism.
They may not be requesting assault charges, but they may be requesting pain and suffering compensation, or using "unkind" comments as leverage in a divorce.
Edit: Why disagree?
Edit: Why disagree?
I didn't downvote you, but I haven't heard of any kind of mass movement to get pain and suffering damages from Donald Trump's tweets, as painful as they were to endure. If you're talking about libel, that's a separate thing, and has been around since before the First Amendment. If you publish untrue things and they harm someone, of course you can (and should) be held liable for your words. Divorce is also a different situation, where someone's words may be fair game as evidence of actions and character, depending on the circumstances.
Things like harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress can be a basis for pain and suffering lawsuits.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/suing-e...
Things like insults, shaming, and verbal abuse are part of emotional abuse in divorce cases. These need not be evidence of actions or character. These can be used for an at fault divorce. What is consided to br an insult or shaming can vary greatly on perspective. Not to mention, the court may not stick ro just these examples and could include other things that makes the other person feel bad - "I hate this meal. Why do you always make this?"
https://www.jerkinsfamilylaw.com/emotional-abuse-and-divorce...
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/suing-e...
Things like insults, shaming, and verbal abuse are part of emotional abuse in divorce cases. These need not be evidence of actions or character. These can be used for an at fault divorce. What is consided to br an insult or shaming can vary greatly on perspective. Not to mention, the court may not stick ro just these examples and could include other things that makes the other person feel bad - "I hate this meal. Why do you always make this?"
https://www.jerkinsfamilylaw.com/emotional-abuse-and-divorce...
Again, those are legal principles that have been enshrined in law for a long time. The article does not address them, which leads me to believe the author was thinking of more general cases of offensive speech, like the campus speaker example he offers, and not specific cases of verbal abuse. There may be cases where people are urging broader scope for those laws, which have a pretty high bar as the lawyer commented earlier in the thread. But most of the debate around offensive speech focuses on the issue of access to platforms.
When it comes to public universities, there is a legitimate question, since a publicly funded university may be considered a state actor. But when it comes to private services like social media where it seem most of the controversy lies, they're free to set any rules they want. And unsurprisingly, their terms of service generally give them broad discretion on who they let use their service.
When it comes to public universities, there is a legitimate question, since a publicly funded university may be considered a state actor. But when it comes to private services like social media where it seem most of the controversy lies, they're free to set any rules they want. And unsurprisingly, their terms of service generally give them broad discretion on who they let use their service.
"When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender."
Considering this is repeated a couple times by the author, it seems they are talking about a general statement and not a narrow circumstance, even if they're using a specific example. It's important to point out that the statement above is not universally true, or if it is, then our laws are immoral.
"Again, those are legal principles that have been enshrined in law for a long time."
“When we do become offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished or required to make restitution,”
It seems to me that restitution and punishment would include those leveled by the legal system. Simply because something has be law for a long time does not make it off limits to discussion, especially if it's application/interpretation has changed over that time.
Considering this is repeated a couple times by the author, it seems they are talking about a general statement and not a narrow circumstance, even if they're using a specific example. It's important to point out that the statement above is not universally true, or if it is, then our laws are immoral.
"Again, those are legal principles that have been enshrined in law for a long time."
“When we do become offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished or required to make restitution,”
It seems to me that restitution and punishment would include those leveled by the legal system. Simply because something has be law for a long time does not make it off limits to discussion, especially if it's application/interpretation has changed over that time.
These are fair points if we read the article as a criticism of existing law. I didn't read it that way, mostly because of the current political context where "cancel culture" is a big issue. But I can certainly see how it can be taken that way. In that case, I can only say that I would strongly disagree that speech alone should never be actionable, there are just too many obvious exceptions such as the ones we've talked about here (libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment). Laws evolve for a reason. They are not academic exercises in philosophy, they arise from experience.
I am not a liberal. Many people are not. The paradox of tolerance is the easy counterarguement to this.
If you choose to never do anything in response to the things people say that's your perogative, I on the other hand can listen just fine to other people and my response to the things they say might be to tell them to stop saying it. "I don't believe you should be allowed to say this without consequence" is also a thing one can say.
If you choose to never do anything in response to the things people say that's your perogative, I on the other hand can listen just fine to other people and my response to the things they say might be to tell them to stop saying it. "I don't believe you should be allowed to say this without consequence" is also a thing one can say.
Ah yes the paradox of tolerance. The "our enemies will stop us so we must stop them first" argument.
Never found it convincing for some reason.
Never found it convincing for some reason.
Well it actually is something that people have to be aware of.
There’s a reason for the “ah you see, the cops have to follow the rules taps forehead” trope.
It’s genuinely hard to maintain a truly tolerant liberal democracy in the face of determined adversaries that can skillfully use the system against itself.
Now, that is no reason to take sloppy shortcuts like saying this or that opinion should be banned, but it is absolutely worth keeping in mind.
There’s a reason for the “ah you see, the cops have to follow the rules taps forehead” trope.
It’s genuinely hard to maintain a truly tolerant liberal democracy in the face of determined adversaries that can skillfully use the system against itself.
Now, that is no reason to take sloppy shortcuts like saying this or that opinion should be banned, but it is absolutely worth keeping in mind.
[deleted]
When you see someone walking towards you with a knife and he says "I am going to stab you", you don't wait for him for to make physical contact before you decide to draw your gun.
The Nazi party was in power for over a decade before the first gas chamber was built. If they had been stopped at the broadcasting hate propaganda stage millions of lives would have been saved, and a war requiring the collective military capacity of the rest of the hemisphere wouldn't have been necessary.
Perhaps the most important lesson of the 20th century is that the broadcasting of the right words for long enough and to enough people can cause destruction and death orders of magnitude greater than any single weapon of war.
The Nazi party was in power for over a decade before the first gas chamber was built. If they had been stopped at the broadcasting hate propaganda stage millions of lives would have been saved, and a war requiring the collective military capacity of the rest of the hemisphere wouldn't have been necessary.
Perhaps the most important lesson of the 20th century is that the broadcasting of the right words for long enough and to enough people can cause destruction and death orders of magnitude greater than any single weapon of war.
> Consider these statements:
> Jesus is not the son of God. All nonbelievers are evil and going to hell. Pornography is morally acceptable. Women should be forced to wear hijabs. American veterans who fought in Iraq are war criminals. The detainees at Guantánamo Bay deserved to be tortured. Capitalism is inherently exploitative, and all wealthy people are morally compromised. Communism is an evil, totalitarian ideology that killed millions of people.
The biggest problem with this analysis is that it treats the speech as separate from the power and reach of the person saying them, downplaying the utterances as just information detached from the real world context in which they are used.
On any given day, you can probably find a mentally ill person on the streets shouting a number of those things, but people aren't listening.
When someone with significant influence, as Yiannapolis was, starts spurting bigotries and abusive speech, the scrutiny on their speech should be greater.
> Jesus is not the son of God. All nonbelievers are evil and going to hell. Pornography is morally acceptable. Women should be forced to wear hijabs. American veterans who fought in Iraq are war criminals. The detainees at Guantánamo Bay deserved to be tortured. Capitalism is inherently exploitative, and all wealthy people are morally compromised. Communism is an evil, totalitarian ideology that killed millions of people.
The biggest problem with this analysis is that it treats the speech as separate from the power and reach of the person saying them, downplaying the utterances as just information detached from the real world context in which they are used.
On any given day, you can probably find a mentally ill person on the streets shouting a number of those things, but people aren't listening.
When someone with significant influence, as Yiannapolis was, starts spurting bigotries and abusive speech, the scrutiny on their speech should be greater.
My solution for banning any speech is that the rules have to be nearly unanimously voted in, and voted in for multiple (maybe 3?) presidential administrations. Things like banning the shoutout of “fire” in a theater. Some laws need to be low pass filtered.
>Things like banning the shoutout of “fire” in a theater. Some laws need to be low pass filtered.
That was mostly overturned in 1969, though the history of it is interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
That was mostly overturned in 1969, though the history of it is interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Interesting info. I think people still get the point I’m making but thanks for the clarification
You're welcome. The most interesting part is the "fire in a theater" was at a time when the government was throwing people in jail for protesting WWI under the Wilson administration. When the SCOTUS affirmed the Debs conviction and 10 year sentence and permanent disenfranchisement, they referenced the case of "fire in a theater," as justification. It was a pretty dark time in our history. I'm glad it was overturned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
I will say that you will never find me fighting for speech being banned. Peers of mine bring up the "fire in a theater" as a counter for us already having free speech limitations. I thought that was still the case and so I was looking for a way to make common sense stuff illegal given the precedence that there are active limitations today.
I'm really uncomfortable with the way twitter mobs dictate what is and isn't free speech and I was looking for a more democratic, test of time driven solution.
I'm really uncomfortable with the way twitter mobs dictate what is and isn't free speech and I was looking for a more democratic, test of time driven solution.
The very first example given, of Rushdie having a fatwa against him, is framed as an example of trying to answer "Why should we defend his writing?" And the general conclusion is that we owe nothing to the "injured" party (in this case, Muslim clerics).
But the Muslim clerics issued their own violent speech. Their speech could have led to the assassination of a human being. Does that speech owe anything to the injured (read: dead) party? Should we allow speech to incite people to kill, "because intellectual liberalism?"
The answer, enshrined into law in most nations, is: no. We don't let you get away with killing people by incitement of violence. Your speech has consequences, and in many cases, you will be held accountable; if not by the law, then by vigilante justice. (This isn't an argument, it's a fact proved by the opposing argument)
You can choose to make the distinction that if you don't see physical harm, that that's not real harm, and thus, doesn't matter. But certain speech can in fact cause physical harm. The consequences of certain speech, by certain people, in certain contexts, can be debilitating, physically painful, nauseating, and drive people insane, even to suicide. In many cases it simply isn't a choice; your body just reacts to stimuli.
The simplest example is kids who kill themselves from incessant traumatic bullying. Even if you think those kids should "toughen up" and "just deal with it", that's not how the brain works. Some people in society are more vulnerable to suggestion and more likely to self-harm than others, and a non-stop barrage of hate and intimidation puts them in a traumatic state. The feeling of anguish is so much they commit suicide to stop the pain. Speech does do real harm, both directly and indirectly.
So, where does that leave us? Arguing over to what degree "verbal harm" counts as "real harm"? Waiting for someone to die, then deciding who, if anyone, gets the blame? This is a pointless morass, because the whole problem can be avoided by just not fucking with people intentionally. Just like with other crimes, sometimes people do harm by accident, and we deal with that in many ways. But when people do harm intentionally, that's a much more serious matter.
Thus we don't need this pointless philosophical diatribe to justify our ability to cause harm at will. If you're going to be a dick, then be a dick. But don't pretend you're doing it to defend some high-minded ideal. You're doing it because you're a dick, and there is no defense for that.
But the Muslim clerics issued their own violent speech. Their speech could have led to the assassination of a human being. Does that speech owe anything to the injured (read: dead) party? Should we allow speech to incite people to kill, "because intellectual liberalism?"
The answer, enshrined into law in most nations, is: no. We don't let you get away with killing people by incitement of violence. Your speech has consequences, and in many cases, you will be held accountable; if not by the law, then by vigilante justice. (This isn't an argument, it's a fact proved by the opposing argument)
You can choose to make the distinction that if you don't see physical harm, that that's not real harm, and thus, doesn't matter. But certain speech can in fact cause physical harm. The consequences of certain speech, by certain people, in certain contexts, can be debilitating, physically painful, nauseating, and drive people insane, even to suicide. In many cases it simply isn't a choice; your body just reacts to stimuli.
The simplest example is kids who kill themselves from incessant traumatic bullying. Even if you think those kids should "toughen up" and "just deal with it", that's not how the brain works. Some people in society are more vulnerable to suggestion and more likely to self-harm than others, and a non-stop barrage of hate and intimidation puts them in a traumatic state. The feeling of anguish is so much they commit suicide to stop the pain. Speech does do real harm, both directly and indirectly.
So, where does that leave us? Arguing over to what degree "verbal harm" counts as "real harm"? Waiting for someone to die, then deciding who, if anyone, gets the blame? This is a pointless morass, because the whole problem can be avoided by just not fucking with people intentionally. Just like with other crimes, sometimes people do harm by accident, and we deal with that in many ways. But when people do harm intentionally, that's a much more serious matter.
Thus we don't need this pointless philosophical diatribe to justify our ability to cause harm at will. If you're going to be a dick, then be a dick. But don't pretend you're doing it to defend some high-minded ideal. You're doing it because you're a dick, and there is no defense for that.
The biggest problem with liberals talking this way is that I fear that right wing Christians are likely to actually implement it someday.
Looking is now also violence.
The next step to wrongthink might be hearing.
The next step to wrongthink might be hearing.
keerthiko(1)
In 2023 that ‘speech’ could well be spam generated by ChatGPT. ‘Free speech’ isn’t the right model to describe coordinated inauthentic communications, spam, agenda spamming, disinformation, etc. In case where capacity to receive messages is limited, communications can be vandalism if not violence.
Every possible alternative you could suggest is worse.
XKCD 1357
End thread. Please never open it again.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
End thread. Please never open it again.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
[deleted]
While this comic does a good job of expressing a particular idea, it has become its own thought-terminating cliche.
Of all the asinine takes on free speech this one is the worst.
Freedom of speech is a concept and idea, the government doesn’t have the right nor ability to police or grant anyone an intrinsic freedom they already have. All the government can do is lend some of its protections to help prevent others from trying to stop you from speaking freely. But as a society if we say that your right to free speech only exists in government buildings. Well… that’s not anything at all.
Freedom of speech is a concept and idea, the government doesn’t have the right nor ability to police or grant anyone an intrinsic freedom they already have. All the government can do is lend some of its protections to help prevent others from trying to stop you from speaking freely. But as a society if we say that your right to free speech only exists in government buildings. Well… that’s not anything at all.
As well as just being an awful take in general, this is a staggeringly inappropriate take on the Rushdie situation.
I wonder how well this will age with the current legal climate and cloudiness around 230
>In 1989, the novelist Salman Rushdie went into hiding. The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwā calling on “all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world” to kill the writer without delay, for which the assassin would receive a bounty of $1 million.
It's not a good look to start your article on how speech is not violence with a concrete example of someone using speech as violence. Or to then keep referring back to it, but only to chastise liberals and leftists for being mildly critical of Rushdie, rather than the actual god damned supreme leader of Iran who called for his death.
Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world now. Hell, we coined the word "stochastic terrorism" to refer to them, because apparently you're not allowed to call a fatwa a fatwa unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling murder.
To be perfectly clear: we can't have a liberal intellectual society in the Arab world[0] for as long as people like the Ayatollahs have power and a platform. Likewise, speech-shaped violence in the Western[1] world harms liberal values way more than left-wingers saying offensive speech is violence. In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit fatwas built-in.
Bonus inaccuracy nit:
>The Roman Catholic Church considered the idea of heliocentricity to be harmful in the 16th century
No, they considered insulting the pope to be harmful. The academic establishment wanted heliocentricity dead, because Galileo was a mathematician - the lowest rung of the academic hierarchy at the time. They silenced Galileo by convincing the Catholics that they had been insulted by a book he published on the topic of heliocentricity.
[0] Iran is majority Shia Muslim but this isn't specific to one sect.
[1] As in, "countries with liberal constitutions and rule of law". Western countries are not literally the westmost parts of the planet.
It's not a good look to start your article on how speech is not violence with a concrete example of someone using speech as violence. Or to then keep referring back to it, but only to chastise liberals and leftists for being mildly critical of Rushdie, rather than the actual god damned supreme leader of Iran who called for his death.
Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world now. Hell, we coined the word "stochastic terrorism" to refer to them, because apparently you're not allowed to call a fatwa a fatwa unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling murder.
To be perfectly clear: we can't have a liberal intellectual society in the Arab world[0] for as long as people like the Ayatollahs have power and a platform. Likewise, speech-shaped violence in the Western[1] world harms liberal values way more than left-wingers saying offensive speech is violence. In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit fatwas built-in.
Bonus inaccuracy nit:
>The Roman Catholic Church considered the idea of heliocentricity to be harmful in the 16th century
No, they considered insulting the pope to be harmful. The academic establishment wanted heliocentricity dead, because Galileo was a mathematician - the lowest rung of the academic hierarchy at the time. They silenced Galileo by convincing the Catholics that they had been insulted by a book he published on the topic of heliocentricity.
[0] Iran is majority Shia Muslim but this isn't specific to one sect.
[1] As in, "countries with liberal constitutions and rule of law". Western countries are not literally the westmost parts of the planet.
>Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world now. Hell, we coined the word "stochastic terrorism" to refer to them, because apparently you're not allowed to call a fatwa a fatwa unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling murder.
I laughed, but it's important to point out that fatwas are not a formal Islamic method of putting out a hit on someone. A (likely inexhaustive) list of major fatwas declared over the past few centuries includes edicts like, "You should get vaccines," and, "Don't smoke cigarettes," and, "Coke and Pepsi are fine, actually." A lot of them are objectionable from a Western humanist's point of view, but they're not all (or even mostly) concerned with unaliving someone.
I imagine tht this lack of understanding is kind of a crucial disconnect, frustrating the West's efforts to help to curb human rights abuses in Islamic regions.
>In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit [threats against life and limb] built-in.
Important to emphasize. People are surprised when good ol' boy speech gets you self-defensively cold-cocked, not understanding that such speech is often part-and-parcel of attempted assault and murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III) It's not speech that proceeds violence, it is speech as subject to violence's predicate, a sort of kiai.
I laughed, but it's important to point out that fatwas are not a formal Islamic method of putting out a hit on someone. A (likely inexhaustive) list of major fatwas declared over the past few centuries includes edicts like, "You should get vaccines," and, "Don't smoke cigarettes," and, "Coke and Pepsi are fine, actually." A lot of them are objectionable from a Western humanist's point of view, but they're not all (or even mostly) concerned with unaliving someone.
I imagine tht this lack of understanding is kind of a crucial disconnect, frustrating the West's efforts to help to curb human rights abuses in Islamic regions.
>In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit [threats against life and limb] built-in.
Important to emphasize. People are surprised when good ol' boy speech gets you self-defensively cold-cocked, not understanding that such speech is often part-and-parcel of attempted assault and murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III) It's not speech that proceeds violence, it is speech as subject to violence's predicate, a sort of kiai.
Point taken. Is there a more specific term for "fatwas that call for someone's death" that I should be using?
> It's not a good look to start your article on how speech is not violence with a concrete example of someone using speech as violence.
> The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwā calling on “all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world” to kill the writer without delay, for which the assassin would receive a bounty of $1 million.
This is called "putting a hit out" on someone.
> The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwā calling on “all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world” to kill the writer without delay, for which the assassin would receive a bounty of $1 million.
This is called "putting a hit out" on someone.
[deleted]
Person A: "Speech causes violence!"
Person B: "How so?"
Person A: proceeds to beat Person B until he stops talking
Person B: "How so?"
Person A: proceeds to beat Person B until he stops talking
If A could beat B, he wouldn't resort to such rhetoric. Person A has a repressed desire to bully that manifests as this passive-aggressive fake politeness.
This is false. Sometimes rhetoric is deployed to mask incapacity, sometimes it's just a delaying tactic - eg to get person B nervous or to allow time for person A's accomplices to close in.
Before going violent you want to frighten as many opponents opponents into submission - violence has a cost even to the stronger party.
Also group A has the power to subdue group B by other means than violence.
Also group A has the power to subdue group B by other means than violence.
"In nations where millions of people hold diverse beliefs, who gets to decide exactly when speech becomes “harmful” and which people should be protected from offensive or critical speech?"
I don't know, maybe we could all get together and collectively decide with some kind of voting mechanism??? Or, if voting every time is too onerous, we could elect a "representative" to stand in for our views? Just a thought!
I don't know, maybe we could all get together and collectively decide with some kind of voting mechanism??? Or, if voting every time is too onerous, we could elect a "representative" to stand in for our views? Just a thought!
Yes, it's a great idea to let people decide what is and isn't true. We know that the more people decide something the better decision they make, that's why mobs of people are known for their cold and rational approach to issues.
We could even go one step further and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and they could decide what is and isn't true. We would have an office, let's call it General Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press. Главлит in short.
We could even go one step further and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and they could decide what is and isn't true. We would have an office, let's call it General Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press. Главлит in short.
Ok, we can vote to allow individuals to instead unilaterally decide what is or isn't true, a system which also has zero problems! People are, after all, known for their cold and rational approach to issues.
But are we allowed to even discuss the topics - or will folks be burned / punched for even discussing the ideas?
Who isn't allowing us to discuss the topics?
The news media, journalists, anti- whatever activists.
Look at coronavirus and the lock step nature of journalism when people said the truth about distancing not being effective, keep the schools open, etc. people were banned from Twitter, YouTube pulled down videos and / or bd special pop ups to tell you to be wary about this person’s point of view.
Look at coronavirus and the lock step nature of journalism when people said the truth about distancing not being effective, keep the schools open, etc. people were banned from Twitter, YouTube pulled down videos and / or bd special pop ups to tell you to be wary about this person’s point of view.
And yet, I see this sentiment constantly and this point of view discussed.
Tyranny of the majority is the problem with this.
We can absolutely vote to dissolve this representative democracy and have as little tyranny as possible!
Another thinkpiece positing that facing consequences for saying fucked up shit is somehow a bad thing.
How many of these must we suffer through? Why do none of these people grasp the concept that when you speak to other people, they do not have to passively absorb your words?
This author, like many others, could use the sage advice my father gave me in 5th grade when I taunted and made fun of another student and got beat up for it: "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash."
How many of these must we suffer through? Why do none of these people grasp the concept that when you speak to other people, they do not have to passively absorb your words?
This author, like many others, could use the sage advice my father gave me in 5th grade when I taunted and made fun of another student and got beat up for it: "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash."
There are two distinct things people often confuse on either side of this issue.
Say a stupid/offending/violent thing and you’ll face consequences from
1) other people listening in the form of shunning/shouting/lost opportunities/laughing.
2) the government in form of fines or even imprisonment.
People on both sides get all hot and bothered when they receive 1) and complain that they have freedom of speech or that their opponents are bigots. This should mostly be ignored, like you said: "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash."
Some people however want their opponents to face 2) and that is very dangerous. That is literally fascism and this sentiment exists on both sides as well.
It’s 2) we need to defend against and pretending that we’re only talking about 1) is a fatal misunderstanding.
Say a stupid/offending/violent thing and you’ll face consequences from
1) other people listening in the form of shunning/shouting/lost opportunities/laughing.
2) the government in form of fines or even imprisonment.
People on both sides get all hot and bothered when they receive 1) and complain that they have freedom of speech or that their opponents are bigots. This should mostly be ignored, like you said: "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash."
Some people however want their opponents to face 2) and that is very dangerous. That is literally fascism and this sentiment exists on both sides as well.
It’s 2) we need to defend against and pretending that we’re only talking about 1) is a fatal misunderstanding.
The problem is that people keep getting upset at 1) and use 2) as a justification for why it's "morally wrong" for 1) to be happening to them.
I have genuinely never seen anyone calling for 2) outside of nations run by theocracies and dictators, with the exception of the UK.
I have genuinely never seen anyone calling for 2) outside of nations run by theocracies and dictators, with the exception of the UK.
I see numerous calls for hate speech laws to be used against all sorts of people every year in many democratic countries.
This article is too long and says too little.
The real debate about free speech is about finding the right balance between harms caused by speech and harms caused by censorship.
It's about the distinction between highly protected forms of speech like journalism, ideas, and protests/strikes, and undesirable speech such as incitements to hatred, slander/harassment, spam, and predatory speech.
As a society you have to figure out which kinds of speech is deserving of broad platforms (talks at universities, interviews on national TV), which kind of speech should be downranked but not banned, and which kind should result in outright de-platforming or even prosecution.
The "speech is violence" rhetoric just means that speech has actual consequences and that we should look at these consequences instead of unthinkingly taking an absolutist free speech position. Free speech is never an absolute, and as anybody who has spent a lot of time online knows, there cannot be free speech without moderation (i.e. censorship).
The real debate about free speech is about finding the right balance between harms caused by speech and harms caused by censorship.
It's about the distinction between highly protected forms of speech like journalism, ideas, and protests/strikes, and undesirable speech such as incitements to hatred, slander/harassment, spam, and predatory speech.
As a society you have to figure out which kinds of speech is deserving of broad platforms (talks at universities, interviews on national TV), which kind of speech should be downranked but not banned, and which kind should result in outright de-platforming or even prosecution.
The "speech is violence" rhetoric just means that speech has actual consequences and that we should look at these consequences instead of unthinkingly taking an absolutist free speech position. Free speech is never an absolute, and as anybody who has spent a lot of time online knows, there cannot be free speech without moderation (i.e. censorship).
Yes but the problem turns out that no matter how you define it whatever criteria you use to restrict speech will eventually become redefined to mean. "What those in power currently dislike."
It's why the first amendment is their to recognize speech should not be limited because if it ever is, it will never stop being so.
It's why the first amendment is their to recognize speech should not be limited because if it ever is, it will never stop being so.
The first amendment doesn't protect literally all speech. Never has, never will. And your assertion that restrictions on speech (e.g. banning spammers) will inevitably lead to some kind of authoritarian dystopia is purely speculative.
If we want a "liberal, intellectual society" we absolutely have to consider some speech "violence."
To use one current example: The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence. It is not an intellectual debate, it's not necessary to entertain in order to preserve free thought, etc.
The goal of that speech is to other trans people and it endangers them. Tolerance of that kind of speech ensures that trans people cannot participate equally in society when there's no consequences for trying to stoke hate and encourage stochastic terrorism.
At some point, if we cannot agree that things like that are unacceptable I don't see how we ever move forward.
To use one current example: The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence. It is not an intellectual debate, it's not necessary to entertain in order to preserve free thought, etc.
The goal of that speech is to other trans people and it endangers them. Tolerance of that kind of speech ensures that trans people cannot participate equally in society when there's no consequences for trying to stoke hate and encourage stochastic terrorism.
At some point, if we cannot agree that things like that are unacceptable I don't see how we ever move forward.
Yes some people employ terms to other people based on religious belief or skin color, should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist? Or suggesting that we should #killallmen?
Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?
And before you say that is extreme, hypothetical or doesn't count because it comes from a position of power my own ancestors were driven out of their homes in 4 states and had an extermination order issued against them by the state of Missouri based on people abusing free speech against them.
Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?
And before you say that is extreme, hypothetical or doesn't count because it comes from a position of power my own ancestors were driven out of their homes in 4 states and had an extermination order issued against them by the state of Missouri based on people abusing free speech against them.
For context, we belong to the same religion, or at least, your ancestors and I do.
> should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist?
Yes. The whole point even in your example is freedom of religion. Denying anyone freedom of or from religion is inherently wrong from both a religious perspective and a secular perspective.
If someone is behaving in that manner, then they should be called out by both people inside and outside of their religion.
> Or suggesting that we should #killallmen?
I would agree that this is bad. I think most people across most political belief's - including the vast majority of leftists I know - would call this bad.
> Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?
It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind.
> should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist?
Yes. The whole point even in your example is freedom of religion. Denying anyone freedom of or from religion is inherently wrong from both a religious perspective and a secular perspective.
If someone is behaving in that manner, then they should be called out by both people inside and outside of their religion.
> Or suggesting that we should #killallmen?
I would agree that this is bad. I think most people across most political belief's - including the vast majority of leftists I know - would call this bad.
> Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?
It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind.
> > Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?
> It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind.
The rights of women to enjoy female-only spaces, for their safety and dignity, is being invalidated in the name of so-called "trans rights", whereby a subset of males who demand access to such spaces, entirely disregarding women's boundaries, are being granted access.
This isn't equality, this is male dominance over women.
And yet again, same as it always is, this is oppression of women to meet the demands and desires of males.
> It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind.
The rights of women to enjoy female-only spaces, for their safety and dignity, is being invalidated in the name of so-called "trans rights", whereby a subset of males who demand access to such spaces, entirely disregarding women's boundaries, are being granted access.
This isn't equality, this is male dominance over women.
And yet again, same as it always is, this is oppression of women to meet the demands and desires of males.
Here's a pretty good refutation of people using feminism as backing for <racism|homophobia|transphobia>
https://feministkilljoys.com/2015/02/15/you-are-oppressing-u...
Actual data disagreeing with your position on this specific situation:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z (https://sci-hub.st/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...)
That aside, I was more referring to people's ability to just... live their life.
Whether being murdered like Brianna Ghey a few days ago, or "just" being unable to access relevant medical care, there's lots of issues with things that cis people can just take for granted.
https://feministkilljoys.com/2015/02/15/you-are-oppressing-u...
Actual data disagreeing with your position on this specific situation:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z (https://sci-hub.st/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...)
That aside, I was more referring to people's ability to just... live their life.
Whether being murdered like Brianna Ghey a few days ago, or "just" being unable to access relevant medical care, there's lots of issues with things that cis people can just take for granted.
> The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence.
I never heard that one before, but it sounds awful similar to the idea that men are all at risk of being pedophiles and should not be allowed to work in places near children.
The idea that all men are inherently dangerous and need to be removed in certain areas and contexts is a fairly common held viewed. Is it that any less of violence than people who view trans people as inherently dangerous? Personally I view both believes to be intolerant and discriminating, but I doubt I will live long enough to see a society where we can move beyond such views.
I never heard that one before, but it sounds awful similar to the idea that men are all at risk of being pedophiles and should not be allowed to work in places near children.
The idea that all men are inherently dangerous and need to be removed in certain areas and contexts is a fairly common held viewed. Is it that any less of violence than people who view trans people as inherently dangerous? Personally I view both believes to be intolerant and discriminating, but I doubt I will live long enough to see a society where we can move beyond such views.
No, its not. If someone punches you in the face, that's violence. If I say "hey, you're a groomer" that's not violence. You can tell the difference because one causes physical pain and the other doesn't. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
From a legal perspective, sure.
From an ethical perspective? You'd be hard pressed to argue that point.
Normalization of ridiculous rhetoric like calling LGBT folks groomers is leading towards more and more hate crimes towards those people, as well as helping push for regulations against adults being able to opt into their own health care and make decisions about their bodies[0].
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-bill-ban-gender-confirming-car...
From an ethical perspective? You'd be hard pressed to argue that point.
Normalization of ridiculous rhetoric like calling LGBT folks groomers is leading towards more and more hate crimes towards those people, as well as helping push for regulations against adults being able to opt into their own health care and make decisions about their bodies[0].
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-bill-ban-gender-confirming-car...
Who gets the power to decide what is ethical and to then ban what they deem unethical? Elected officials? Academics? Who do we give that level of power too? You? Me? Biden? Trump? I understand that saying negative things about people is not a nice thing to do and can cause emotional pain, I just think that the consequences of removing free speech are far worse and leads to a place where suddenly people you voted against have unlimited power.
> Who do we give that level of power too? You? Me? Biden? Trump?
Society as a whole, via the sort of discourse that we're having now.
Freedom of speech comes with other people having the right/responsibility to also have freedom of association and reject the sort of speech that is found to be intolerable.
Note that in this specific instance, it is not a case of legally unavailable speech, but a case which is more likely to result in ostracism of those who use it - which is the system working as intended.
Society as a whole, via the sort of discourse that we're having now.
Freedom of speech comes with other people having the right/responsibility to also have freedom of association and reject the sort of speech that is found to be intolerable.
Note that in this specific instance, it is not a case of legally unavailable speech, but a case which is more likely to result in ostracism of those who use it - which is the system working as intended.
100% agree that objectionable speech should not be free of social ramifications. My only concern is with government restrictions on speech.
TheFreim(2)
> In contrast, physical violence is an uncomplicated, universal offender. A punch to the face hurts everyone.
What a completely deranged take. It's easy to conceive of a thought experiment that absolutely destroys this perspective.
Imagine that I've applied lidocaine to my face and you punch me. Then someone points out that because I didn't feel pain, that "It's ok to punch other people in the face."
The author's argument makes about as much sense, ie: none.
What a completely deranged take. It's easy to conceive of a thought experiment that absolutely destroys this perspective.
Imagine that I've applied lidocaine to my face and you punch me. Then someone points out that because I didn't feel pain, that "It's ok to punch other people in the face."
The author's argument makes about as much sense, ie: none.
In this strawman argument, are you asserting that lidocaine prevents the punch from causing physical damage?
If the author was implying damage, he did an incredibly poor job at conveying that. He said "hurt" not "damage."
You're going to have a frustrating time if you use that kind of pedantry to build a bad-faith interpretation of the proposed argument. "Joey got hurt in the boxing match" does not generally mean he was offended by the color of his opponent's shorts, and when someone talks about a punch in the face hurting someone they're using the broadest sense of the word 'hurt,' which is commonly accepted to encompass all of emotional pain, physical damage, and the deleterious effect of violence on any given community. Choosing the specific definition that makes the argument weakest isn't really productive unless you're just looking to get mad about something.
Language is always evolving, and words do not always need to be tethered to their denotative meaning for us to understand what people mean.
That would be an insightful comment if you hadn't just deliberately misinterpreted someone by tethering yourself to an overly-specific denotative meaning.
>Imagine that I've applied lidocaine to my face and you punch me. Then someone points out that because I didn't feel pain, that "It's ok to punch other people in the face."
Your entire strawman is invalidated because the author wrote "hurt", not "pained". Even if you didn't feel pain, a punch still hurts (injures) your body. QED.
Hurt: To cause physical damage or pain to (an individual or a body part); injure.[0]
>What a completely deranged take.
Reread your comment over again if you want a completely deranged take.
[0] https://www.wordnik.com/words/hurt
Your entire strawman is invalidated because the author wrote "hurt", not "pained". Even if you didn't feel pain, a punch still hurts (injures) your body. QED.
Hurt: To cause physical damage or pain to (an individual or a body part); injure.[0]
>What a completely deranged take.
Reread your comment over again if you want a completely deranged take.
[0] https://www.wordnik.com/words/hurt
I think this article makes a key mistake that I see almost all commentators make of visions of free speech less radical than, say, the first amendment: They consider only the direct effects of speech on those who hear it. If you accept this, it's very easy to(correctly) respond that it's not the state's job to police mere offense, no matter how grave it may be. Some people who try to make criticisms of a radical free speech regime(such as the NYT author this article mentions) also fall into this trap, but I think the much more compelling for limiting speech is less about harm done by speech to listeners and more about incitement of physical harm.
It's very, very easy to communicate in ways that encourage and incite violence(be it direct physical violence or denial of the means to live a dignified life), especially against groups against whom such violence is already normalized. Not all speech that does incite violence is intended to, but this fact also lends plausible deniability to people who do explicitly want violence but know that it's socially unacceptable to call for it directly. There is the danger of being overzealous with what speech to limit, but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims. Taking such people at their word on their intentions is dangerous, and those who do so have no right to act surprised and claim innocence when actions and rhetoric escalate past the point they're comfortable with.
It's very, very easy to communicate in ways that encourage and incite violence(be it direct physical violence or denial of the means to live a dignified life), especially against groups against whom such violence is already normalized. Not all speech that does incite violence is intended to, but this fact also lends plausible deniability to people who do explicitly want violence but know that it's socially unacceptable to call for it directly. There is the danger of being overzealous with what speech to limit, but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims. Taking such people at their word on their intentions is dangerous, and those who do so have no right to act surprised and claim innocence when actions and rhetoric escalate past the point they're comfortable with.
> but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims.
Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are incapable of intelligently reasoning about something and that another superior individual should be able to police what they hear.
If someone says racist hateful things you're argument is that people should not be allowed to listen to it because it is a "bad thing" and other people who aren't as wise as you shoudlnt be allowed to hear it because they might act violently.
Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are incapable of intelligently reasoning about something and that another superior individual should be able to police what they hear.
If someone says racist hateful things you're argument is that people should not be allowed to listen to it because it is a "bad thing" and other people who aren't as wise as you shoudlnt be allowed to hear it because they might act violently.
> Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are incapable of intelligently reasoning about something and that another superior individual should be able to police what they hear.
How do I defeat someone "in the marketplace of ideas" when the person inciting violence is backed by a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate, an undemocratic government, or a police union/sheriff gang?
> If someone says racist hateful things you're argument is that people should not be allowed to listen to it because it is a "bad thing" and other people who aren't as wise as you shoudlnt be allowed to hear it because they might act violently.
It's not about being "wise", it's about incentives. Plenty of people directly and benefit from violence against marginalized groups, and it's in their interest to accept and encourage the normalization of violence against those groups. Media provocateurs have an impeccable sense of what they need to say and what ideas they're communicating when they speak. Plausibly deniable provocation works so well precisely because the target audience understand the real message perfectly.
How do I defeat someone "in the marketplace of ideas" when the person inciting violence is backed by a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate, an undemocratic government, or a police union/sheriff gang?
> If someone says racist hateful things you're argument is that people should not be allowed to listen to it because it is a "bad thing" and other people who aren't as wise as you shoudlnt be allowed to hear it because they might act violently.
It's not about being "wise", it's about incentives. Plenty of people directly and benefit from violence against marginalized groups, and it's in their interest to accept and encourage the normalization of violence against those groups. Media provocateurs have an impeccable sense of what they need to say and what ideas they're communicating when they speak. Plausibly deniable provocation works so well precisely because the target audience understand the real message perfectly.
>How do I defeat someone "in the marketplace of ideas" when the person inciting violence is backed by a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate, an undemocratic government, or a police union/sheriff gang?
Violence. I would not bet against escalating physical violence in the coming decade or two in the US along political lines.
Violence. I would not bet against escalating physical violence in the coming decade or two in the US along political lines.
It is effectively impossible to reason people out of positions they have not reasoned themselves into.
The market place of idea struggles in my close friend group where we have sort of a tradition to do these kind of debates, despite us being very close since almost a decade, and educated above our national average.
It's a nice enough idea, but i dont see how to make it work in a space where money amplifies speech, and some types of speeches have been a negative to specific groups of people throughout history.
The obvious long term solution is more education but that requires money, so the obvious short term solution is censorship
The market place of idea struggles in my close friend group where we have sort of a tradition to do these kind of debates, despite us being very close since almost a decade, and educated above our national average.
It's a nice enough idea, but i dont see how to make it work in a space where money amplifies speech, and some types of speeches have been a negative to specific groups of people throughout history.
The obvious long term solution is more education but that requires money, so the obvious short term solution is censorship
> It is effectively impossible to reason people out of positions they have not reasoned themselves into.
Some people cannot be trusted with certain ideas so a more superior individual must control what they can hear.
Do you realize how patronizing and condescending you sound about your friends by the way when you clearly imply your ideas are well reasoned and factual and theirs are the result of psychology manipulation?
Some people cannot be trusted with certain ideas so a more superior individual must control what they can hear.
Do you realize how patronizing and condescending you sound about your friends by the way when you clearly imply your ideas are well reasoned and factual and theirs are the result of psychology manipulation?
But it is true, in fact that is part of the core ideas of representative democracy, and also the basic principle behind the monopoly of violence that any democratic state has to have
Some people cannot be trusted with certains ideas so a more superior indivdual or organisation must control what they can do
Or must we abandon policing since we can all exchange on the marketplace of ideas ?
My idea is since i control 40 gunmans and you control 0, you owe me money despite nothing having ever happened between us. No violence was ever implied.
Not saying that speech = action, but i cannot see how you can argue for police to exist but speech to be free as speech in itself must lead to actions, or why else would we speak in public ?
Some people cannot be trusted with certains ideas so a more superior indivdual or organisation must control what they can do
Or must we abandon policing since we can all exchange on the marketplace of ideas ?
My idea is since i control 40 gunmans and you control 0, you owe me money despite nothing having ever happened between us. No violence was ever implied.
Not saying that speech = action, but i cannot see how you can argue for police to exist but speech to be free as speech in itself must lead to actions, or why else would we speak in public ?
This isn't really about whose ideas are more correct. The strategy is, as Steve Bannon infamously put it, to "flood the zone with shit". They're basically doing a DDoS against the marketplace of ideas.
The marketplace of ideas is a completely made up thing to justify a stance of political non-action against real harms. People who are for example planning a mass shooting against a demonized minority are not participating in such a market, to the extent it exists at all.
And the people planning shooting against a demonized majority?
They're probably not in that "market" either! Thanks for asking this totally sincere, clarifying and helpful question.
Even if I agreed with you (I don't), moving harm further and further away from actual speech and trying to divine what the speaker is "actually saying" and punish them for that leads to Stasi thought police every time it's tried.
[deleted]
>denial of the means to live a dignified life
That is not violence, not sure why you put some weasel statements in.
That is not violence, not sure why you put some weasel statements in.
I think everyone is able to see how the other side incites violence, but thinks the rule doesn't apply to them. For instance, there was a lot of rhetoric about how dangerous it was when Donald Trump was elected - that it would be the end of Democracy, that fascism was coming to the U.S., that we could well end up with concentration camps and nuclear war. The man who shot up the Congressional baseball game[1] was a member of pages dedicated to how threatening Trump and the Republicans were. Are the people who said that responsible for his attempt at political assassination?
I guess you can argue that. But most people I see bringing up "stochastic terrorism" suddenly say that those types of violence don't count. It's not just that this outlook is controversial - I've yet to meet anyone who has applied it consistently.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shootin...
I guess you can argue that. But most people I see bringing up "stochastic terrorism" suddenly say that those types of violence don't count. It's not just that this outlook is controversial - I've yet to meet anyone who has applied it consistently.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shootin...
When a message board or user is kicked off a platform, it's never for "saying the wrong thing" or "political correctness". It's generally because they organized targeted campaigns of harassment, doxxing, swatting, and other kinds of behavior that violated the terms of service.
Take this example:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi-farms-...
"At least three people have died by suicide after becoming targets of Kiwi Farms harassment campaigns, according to Vice. In 2016, the family of a trans person who died by suicide, Lizzy Waite, was harassed by Kiwi Farms trolls for weeks after her death. She had posted a suicide note on Facebook."
"Sorrenti, known to fans of her streaming channel as “Keffals,” says that when her front door opened on Aug. 5 the first thing she saw was a police officer’s gun pointed at her face. It was just the beginning of a weekslong campaign of stalking, threats and violence against Sorrenti that ended up making her flee the country."
When we talk about violent forms of speech, this is what we mean. Actual crimes.
Note that this website was, in the end, taken down. But the users have moved on to other spaces where they organize harassment campaigns, such as Libs of Tiktok.
Take this example:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi-farms-...
"At least three people have died by suicide after becoming targets of Kiwi Farms harassment campaigns, according to Vice. In 2016, the family of a trans person who died by suicide, Lizzy Waite, was harassed by Kiwi Farms trolls for weeks after her death. She had posted a suicide note on Facebook."
"Sorrenti, known to fans of her streaming channel as “Keffals,” says that when her front door opened on Aug. 5 the first thing she saw was a police officer’s gun pointed at her face. It was just the beginning of a weekslong campaign of stalking, threats and violence against Sorrenti that ended up making her flee the country."
When we talk about violent forms of speech, this is what we mean. Actual crimes.
Note that this website was, in the end, taken down. But the users have moved on to other spaces where they organize harassment campaigns, such as Libs of Tiktok.
I was recently suspended from a platform for "hate speechd when I brought up the Pakistani rape gangs that were operating in the UK.
It turns out hate speech means speech somebody hates.
It turns out hate speech means speech somebody hates.
> When we talk about violent forms of speech, this is what we mean. Actual crimes.
If we're talking about actual crimes getting prosecuted, then what's the issue here? All I see is the law doing it's job
Somebody got swatted. Ok. We're talking about speech here, not swatting
If we're talking about actual crimes getting prosecuted, then what's the issue here? All I see is the law doing it's job
Somebody got swatted. Ok. We're talking about speech here, not swatting
>>When a message board or user is kicked off a platform, it's never for "saying the wrong thing" or "political correctness".
That is not what I have seen - what about all the MDs and scientists that warned about possible side-effects of the vaccine, but since their opinions were not approved by the government, were kicked off twitter/facebook etc?
How about the NYPost being de-platformed for reporting on the hunter biden laptop story? a story which has now been admitted to being true?
That is not what I have seen - what about all the MDs and scientists that warned about possible side-effects of the vaccine, but since their opinions were not approved by the government, were kicked off twitter/facebook etc?
How about the NYPost being de-platformed for reporting on the hunter biden laptop story? a story which has now been admitted to being true?
> it's never for "saying the wrong thing" or "political correctness"
My reddit account was permanently suspended for upvoting vaccine skepticism.
My reddit account was permanently suspended for upvoting vaccine skepticism.
Sure, speech can be harmful and hurtful, to the point that someone should get punished for it. But the law has generally done very good job of reminding us that this tends to be a VERY NARROW possibility, i.e. the harm has to be very specific and directed and measurable.