191–200 of 204 posts
This would be more concerning if free speech wasn't limited so much already. Screws are already tightened so much you will barely notice difference.
Oh, you are right - I hadn't noticed, but now I am concerned. In what ways is free speech "limited so much already"?
[0]: https://reason.com/2015/04/26/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should continue to be exceptions to free speech. Who would advocate for removing _all_ of the exceptions listed here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... ?
With a perspective looking on a global world, free speech should even be extended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. There's loads of stuff that makes it into mass shooter manifestoes that has clearly been part of inciting them to violence, but can't be cleanly traced back to a specific individual telling them to pull the trigger. Have a look at the subject of "stochastic terrorism".
You are on the slope. The slippery slope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're picking the side of those who are no-platformed. That's the point.
Yes, and they are utterly disingenuous in doing so. "Free speech" has nothing whatsoever to do with the examples they've picked for their front page. "Free speech" is protection from persecution by the state . What they're arguing for is freedom from social consequences. Not only that, but the specific example they've picked could almost be designed to highlight a specific culture-war position; given that their front…
Without any resistance whatsoever from groups like the FSU, the social consequences you mention will tend to spiral into something quite ugly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Likewise screaming Fire! in a crowded space is not allowed as free speech. Can we please stop using this worn-out excuse for censorship as if it were some deep insight? It was indefensible back when it was first invented to justify prosecuting people for protesting the draft. It's just plain sad that people still parrot it to this day. First, even the people that invented it for reasons of political expediency didn…
Please don't defend harming other people. Of course you can scream fire if there is one, but the point is that making up a lie and intentionally introducing it into the public square harms others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The misunderstanding is that freedoms exist without constraint due to the damage that their exercise does to others. I have freedom to act in any way I choose, but I am not allowed to smash my neighbors windows or set a fire in their garden. The harm that I would do necessarily defines the parameters of my freedom. Likewise screaming Fire! in a crowded space is not allowed as free speech. People could die, you could…
> Likewise screaming Fire! in a crowded space is not allowed as free speech. Can we please stop using this worn-out excuse for censorship as if it were some deep insight? It was indefensible back when it was first invented to justify prosecuting people for protesting the draft. It's just plain sad that people still parrot it to this day. First, even the people that invented it for reasons of political expediency didn…
Ordinary coherent conversation is one thing. Inciting a riot etc is clearly a different thing. Because both begin with words is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No matter what your standard of "real harm," free speech has examples where it risks causing real harm. I think you must have either a very broad interpretation of what counts as "speech" or a very loose concept of causality. My standard of "real harm", which I do not consider particularly idiosyncratic, essentially comes down to bodily injury or property damage. (How other people think about you—reputation—is not…
This is a legalistic take on causality. I agree in legal terms. It's not belief in human sacrifice, or joining in a religion that does human sacrifice that should be illegal. These can't be illegal if we want to have freedom of religion. That said, the relationship between cult beliefs and cult practices is not "loose" at all. The "Peoples Temple" religion did result in a mass suicide. 19th century rumours about Jews…
As I said, you seem to have a very loose concept of causality. To me, led to is very different from caused. That difference comes down to choice. Speech may influence someone to act in a certain manner, but it doesn't cause them to act that way—they have to choose to act, and in doing so take full responsibility for the consequences. Their choice serves as a break in the chain of liability; the speaker is not responsible (punishable) for what others may choose to do after hearing them speak. Even if the speaker is directly calling for specific actions, the responsibility lies entirely with those who make the choice to act on that speech. The harm is not in the speech, but rather in the action.
We have these freedoms because they do not and cannot cause harm, in and of themselves, which in turn implies that harm (again, bodily injury or loss/destruction of property—any sort of legally-mandated punishment) is not a proportional response no matter how much one may dislike the speech or beliefs, respectively, or how concerned one might be for the influence they may eventually have on other people's choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Likewise screaming Fire! in a crowded space is not allowed as free speech. Can we please stop using this worn-out excuse for censorship as if it were some deep insight? It was indefensible back when it was first invented to justify prosecuting people for protesting the draft. It's just plain sad that people still parrot it to this day. First, even the people that invented it for reasons of political expediency didn…
Sophistry. Like the bully saying "Why are you hitting yourself?!" Ordinary coherent conversation is one thing. Inciting a riot etc is clearly a different thing. Because both begin with words is irrelevant.
I'm going to guess that many readers from this US-focused site have assumed this is like the ACLU or something but for Britain. It er... is not. It's a platform for Toby Young in particular, and a cadre of fragile Right Wing "intellectuals" to insist that it's wrong for anybody to even criticise their bullshit. This gives you some sort of idea: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/4agqbn/toby-young-free-sp... I actuall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a legalistic take on causality. I agree in legal terms. It's not belief in human sacrifice, or joining in a religion that does human sacrifice that should be illegal. These can't be illegal if we want to have freedom of religion. That said, the relationship between cult beliefs and cult practices is not "loose" at all. The "Peoples Temple" religion did result in a mass suicide. 19th century rumours about Jews…
> If your standard of harm is "harming other people or their property," I'm sure we can find examples of speech, religion, and other freedoms which have led to these harms. As I said, you seem to have a very loose concept of causality. To me, led to is very different from caused . That difference comes down to choice . Speech may influence someone to act in a certain manner, but it doesn't cause them to act that way—…
"Speech may influence someone to act in a certain manner, but it doesn't cause them to act that way—they have to choose to act, and in doing so take full responsibility for the consequences."
Replace "speech" with "bribery" or a mafia boss giving an order to commit a crime.
Causality, in the sense that you're using it, is legalistic. In practice, the Jonestown religion/cult, it's beliefs, and membership did cause a mass suicide and murder. That obviously doesn't absolve anyone of anything, but you can't exonerate the religion on a philosophical technicality. Religion is a right. That does not mean that it is harmless, powerless or unrelated to causality.
Speech is just the same. Voting too. Powerful. Dangerous.
If you believe that free speech needs to be protected because it causes no harm... that's the road to losing it, because it's premised on a demonstrable untruth.