Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

But if you weren't civil, I would just walk away and look for an engaging conversation elsewhere. I would certainly not call for you to be prosecuted for it.

But if my incivility caused you harm? Not theoretical harm, but real and actual harm? What then?

I've already answered this question. If the "real" harm you speak of is emotional trauma, then quite simply nothing. Or at least no criminal prosecution. Because then we're in police state territory and not a free society.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hindus, or children, are not groups. They are defined sets of people with common characteristics. But no collective mind. The collective mind of a set of people is a fiction. It may possibly in some circumstances be a useful fiction, but that is to be demonstrated rather than assumed. A group can conspire to commit a crime, and thereby share responsibility. A set of people cannot commit a crime.

No, no collective mind, but, in many cases, groups behave as if they shared a common mind, even though, in actuality, they don't.

So how exactly is it a useful fiction to treat all left-handed people, for example, as sharing a common mind ?

Please show a little respect for the subject under discussion. Seeking to demean or insult the subject contributes nothing.

Of course this does not usefully apply to the group labelled "left-handed people". But it could easily and comfortably fit a group of football supporters, or those of a particular political persuasion. As you surely realise, there are (very) many similar examples.

[Pattern-chaser]

If the "real" harm you speak of is emotional trauma, then quite simply nothing.

I thought we'd agreed that real and actual harm can be done with words? Not that all words cause real and actual harm, but that *some of them* can, and do. After all, PTSD (not usually caused by words!) is the result of harm that we might reasonably describe as "emotional trauma", isn't it?

[Fried Egg]

If the "real" harm you speak of is emotional trauma, then quite simply nothing.

I thought we'd agreed that real and actual harm can be done with words? Not that all words cause real and actual harm, but that *some of them* can, and do. After all, PTSD (not usually caused by words!) is the result of harm that we might reasonably describe as "emotional trauma", isn't it?

I feel like we are going around in circles a bit here. Let me re-post what I said on the last page (a few posts back):

I also mentioned earlier that sometimes, even saying true and reasonable things will cause emotional trauma (harm) in the minds of those who really don't want to hear it. Which is the primary reason I believe that laws should not endeavor to protect people from harm.

But I've said all this before and am only repeating myself.

I've also said before that living in a society that seeks to protect people from the emotional trauma (that speech can sometimes cause) exacerbates the problem (i.e. people becoming more intolerant of opinions they don't like) and that I believe it is in direct conflict with the principles of a free society (of which free speech is an integral part).

I believe you've made it clear that if the above are indeed at odds with each other, you would choose protection over freedom and since it comes down to a different of values, there's not much more to be said.

[Lagayascienza]

The difficulty is in quantifying harm caused by words, and distinguishing said harm from mere offence. We have a right not to be physically harmed, but should we have a right not to be offended? When it comes to harm, our laws dealing with assault, if fairly policed and prosecuted without fear or favor, offer adequate protection from harm without special hate-crime laws and extra penalties. Why should I not be free to say that all Jews are usurious, money-grubbing fiends or that all blacks are lazy good-for-nothing thugs who wouldn't work in an iron lung. Such speech may offend, and whilst I certainly do not believe such things about Jews or Blacks as groups, does offence equal harm? Can't Jews and backs turn around and call me a fascist, racist pig? And if they did, and if I were offended, should the law go after the Jews and blacks for offending me? The very notion of hate speech is fraught. Better to let all speech be dealt with in the free marketplace of ideas. Let the left and right-wing demagogues and the racists spout their hateful nonsense. It can be countered with free speech. If we start making special hate-crime laws for some groups, then why not special laws for all groups? And what constitutes a group? If we go down that road then, eventually, no one will be able to say anything about anyone. What sort of freedom would that be?

[Pattern-chaser]

I've also said before that living in a society that seeks to protect people from the emotional trauma (that speech can sometimes cause) exacerbates the problem (i.e. people becoming more intolerant of opinions they don't like) and that I believe it is in direct conflict with the principles of a free society (of which free speech is an integral part).

OK, I'm sorry for my own repetition.

Do you think that being regularly stabbed is something we should get used to, to make us more able to tolerate real life, or is it something we should protect each other from? Or does that "exacerbate the problem"? Perhaps we could employ stabbers, to stab us all regularly, to protect ourselves against becoming the weak and pathetic specimens you are seemingly so afraid of?

We make laws to protect ourselves and each other from harm. Not trivial harm, but real, actual, and life-affecting harm. The source of the harm doesn't really matter: it's the resulting harm that we seek to avoid. The source of that harm, words or blades, doesn't really make a difference, does it?

[Fried Egg]

I've also said before that living in a society that seeks to protect people from the emotional trauma (that speech can sometimes cause) exacerbates the problem (i.e. people becoming more intolerant of opinions they don't like) and that I believe it is in direct conflict with the principles of a free society (of which free speech is an integral part).

OK, I'm sorry for my own repetition.

Do you think that being regularly stabbed is something we should get used to, to make us more able to tolerate real life, or is it something we should protect each other from? Or does that "exacerbate the problem"? Perhaps we could employ stabbers, to stab us all regularly, to protect ourselves against becoming the weak and pathetic specimens you are seemingly so afraid of?

We make laws to protect ourselves and each other from harm. Not trivial harm, but real, actual, and life-affecting harm. The source of the harm doesn't really matter: it's the resulting harm that we seek to avoid. The source of that harm, words or blades, doesn't really make a difference, does it?

The problem is your analogy between the the harm caused by emotional trauma and the physical harm just doesn't stand up. Some people may feel real, non trivial harm from perfectly valid and fair speech. That's a shame, I don't want anyone to suffer, but it is simply not a justification for prohibiting it. You clearly don't agree though.

It's not a matter of me not recognising the reality of harm caused by emotional trauma, but rather a recognition of the fact that attempting to protect people from it is inherently at odds with the protection of freedom. This is in contrast with the protection from physical harm which is perfectly aligned with the protection of freedom.

[Pattern-chaser]

We make laws to protect ourselves and each other from harm. Not trivial harm, but real, actual, and life-affecting harm. The source of the harm doesn't really matter: it's the resulting harm that we seek to avoid. The source of that harm, words or blades, doesn't really make a difference, does it?

The problem is your analogy between the the harm caused by emotional trauma and the physical harm just doesn't stand up. Some people may feel real, non trivial harm from perfectly valid and fair speech. That's a shame, I don't want anyone to suffer, but it is simply not a justification for prohibiting it. You clearly don't agree though.

It's not a matter of me not recognising the reality of harm caused by emotional trauma, but rather a recognition of the fact that attempting to protect people from it is inherently at odds with the protection of freedom. This is in contrast with the protection from physical harm which is perfectly aligned with the protection of freedom.

First, I'm not offering an "analogy", I'm offering a real-life and literal mention of examples of harm. I say "mention" because, as I just wrote, I'm not even trying to make a comparison. You have joined me in the correct 'location'*, but you are facing left, toward all the different sorts of harm that people can suffer, while I'm facing the opposite direction, focussing on harm; any and all forms of (non-trivial) harm.

* — this *is* an analogy, as we are not referring to a literal geographical location.

I can't see how your argument stands up. You argue for one group of types-of-harm, but against another. Why? ... No, sorry, you already said "why"; what I'm asking for is your justification. What is your justification for being willing to protect me (and others too, of course) from one type of harm, but telling me that I must learn to endure a different sort of harm, and not moan about it?

Is the freedom to harm (by speech) so important to freedom-as-a-whole that it over-rides harm, and its avoidance or prevention? I don't really think it is.

[Fried Egg]

Is the freedom to harm (by speech) so important to freedom-as-a-whole that it over-rides harm, and its avoidance or prevention? I don't really think it is.

And I do. And hence the different value judgements we make that I suspect we will never be able to reconcile.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is the freedom to harm (by speech) so important to freedom-as-a-whole that it over-rides harm, and its avoidance or prevention? I don't really think it is.

And I do. And hence the different value judgements we make that I suspect we will never be able to reconcile.

OK, then what is it about freedom of speech that makes it important enough to suppress/ignore harm and harm-doing, just so that FoS can exist without constraint? And why is it only the harm caused by words that you discount, when you acknowledge and oppose other forms of harm along with the rest of us?

[Fried Egg]

OK, then what is it about freedom of speech that makes it important enough to suppress/ignore harm and harm-doing, just so that FoS can exist without constraint? And why is it only the harm caused by words that you discount, when you acknowledge and oppose other forms of harm along with the rest of us?

I feel that I've already answered this question multiple times. The core point here is that perfectly reasonable and true speech might cause genuine emotional trauma in the minds of those that don't want to here it. If the law endeavoured to protect everyone from the emotional trauma they might endure from hearing/reading things that upsets them, a lot of important, true and reasonable things won't get said and that, I think, is very bad for society.

Even when someone is being genuinely hateful, speech, unlike physical violence, it is not always possible to predict who will suffer the emotional harm of something said. For instance, person A might use a racial slur and person B (who is of the race in question) shrugs it off but person C (who is not the race in question) might be so offended that they suffer emotional trauma.

Note, I don't think that the hate speech laws as they currently exist in the UK are actually trying to protect everyone from emotional harm, they are trying to make a distinction between hateful and non hateful speech. i.e. they are at least trying to take account of the intent, the maliciousness of the speaker. In other words, they are trying to strike a balance between free speech and protection from harm.

I do not think that overtly malicious and hateful conduct should ever be socially acceptable in our society. But I think that people with hateful ideas and opinions should be free to express them (i.e. not prosecuted in law for saying such things). By forbidding people from saying such things you do not destroy the hateful views, you just drive it underground. Better to know who such people are, so their fallacious arguments can be demolished in public debate.

I agree that speech that presents an "imminent incitement to lawless action" should be an exception (i.e. I am not a free speech absolutist), but I do believe the balance we strike right now in the UK is not right. i.e. some of the people prosecuted in the wake of the recent Southport riots in the UK were sentenced for things which clearly didn't meet this criterion.

[Pattern-chaser]

OK, then what is it about freedom of speech that makes it important enough to suppress/ignore harm and harm-doing, just so that FoS can exist without constraint? And why is it only the harm caused by words that you discount, when you acknowledge and oppose other forms of harm along with the rest of us?

I feel that I've already answered this question multiple times.

You don't seem to have come out and said clearly why the freedom to speak is so much more important than freedom from harm. ... Or some types of harm, but not others?

The core point here is that perfectly reasonable and true speech might cause genuine emotional trauma in the minds of those that don't want to here it. If the law endeavoured to protect everyone from the emotional trauma they might endure from hearing/reading things that upsets them, a lot of important, true and reasonable things won't get said and that, I think, is very bad for society.

Even when someone is being genuinely hateful, speech, unlike physical violence, it is not always possible to predict who will suffer the emotional harm of something said. For instance, person A might use a racial slur and person B (who is of the race in question) shrugs it off but person C (who is not the race in question) might be so offended that they suffer emotional trauma.

Note, I don't think that the hate speech laws as they currently exist in the UK are actually trying to protect everyone from emotional harm, they are trying to make a distinction between hateful and non hateful speech. i.e. they are at least trying to take account of the intent, the maliciousness of the speaker. In other words, they are trying to strike a balance between free speech and protection from harm.

I do not think that overtly malicious and hateful conduct should ever be socially acceptable in our society. But I think that people with hateful ideas and opinions should be free to express them (i.e. not prosecuted in law for saying such things). By forbidding people from saying such things you do not destroy the hateful views, you just drive it underground. Better to know who such people are, so their fallacious arguments can be demolished in public debate.

I agree that speech that presents an "imminent incitement to lawless action" should be an exception (i.e. I am not a free speech absolutist), but I do believe the balance we strike right now in the UK is not right. i.e. some of the people prosecuted in the wake of the recent Southport riots in the UK were sentenced for things which clearly didn't meet this criterion.

[Pattern-chaser]

The core point here is that perfectly reasonable and true speech might cause genuine emotional trauma in the minds of those that don't want to hear it. If the law endeavoured to protect everyone from the emotional trauma they might endure from hearing/reading things that upsets them, a lot of important, true and reasonable things won't get said...

So what? If freedom from harm trumps freedom to speak, and I think it does, I can see no reason here to change my mind. You just want to speak freely ... even if it harms someone else, perhaps seriously. What is so important about what you have to say that you are willing to harm others, and to allow others to harm others?


"Upsets" should read "harms". Again and again, you dismiss this form of harm as being trivial, or somehow less than other forms of harm. We have already agreed — perhaps somewhat grudgingly on your part? — that speech can cause real and actual harm, as opposed to "upset", which is a word that says the harm is trivial, not like *real* harm. I think harm is harm. Don't you?

[Fried Egg]

I do not think I have anything to add to what I have already said. See you on the other side of the trenches.

[Fried Egg]

It's quite disturbing really. Only yesterday, during parliaments' "question time" an MP asked Keir Starmer if he would “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”. Is this essentially a call for the re-introduction of blasphemy laws, justified under the guise of protecting a "marginalized" group (in this case Muslims) from "hate" crime?

In my opinion, we are already not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. In 2021, a teacher from a grammar School was forced into hiding and received death threats after showing an illustration of the prophet Muhammad in class.

When protecting people from "hate" becomes protecting people from being offended, we have definitely gone too far.

I wonder if those who support crimes against "hate" speech support the re-introduction of blasphemy laws?

Pondering the incident in parliament above with the request to introduce blasphemy laws on the justification of protecting Muslims against "islamophobia", it strikes me that we wouldn't really need a new law to bring this about because we already have, here in the UK, DeFacto anti-blasphemy laws, particularly when it comes to Islam.

Consider the case last year in a school in Wakefield when a Koran was brought in to school by a child when he lost a bet (after losing at a video game). It was dropped on the floor and received some minor scuffs. When news of this incident reached the wider community, the school received complaints from local Muslims, including local councillors and mosque leaders. The school responded not by defending the pupils, but by suspending them and apologising. One of the boys mothers appeared at a mosque with police and apologised for her son's disrespectful behaviour and sought forgiveness from the local communities.

One might think that the whole incident above was quite trivial. After all, clearly the children were just larking about and weren't actually trying to make a statement about Islam (which they should be perfectly able to do without the fear of death threats which they apparently received). But why didn't the school and the police come to the children's defence? Why was the school and the children's parents forced to cow down and apologise to the "offended" Muslim communities?

Right now, anyone who speaks out against Islam is likely to come under a huge amount of pressure from Muslim groups. They might face pressure to be fired and received death threats. The police will do nothing besides encouraging the speaker to apologise to the offended groups and may file a NCHI (Non Crime Hate Incident).

Presumably those who are concerned with the level of hurt that speech can cause those who are offended by it, who are perfectly happy to sacrifice free speech to achieve this, would welcome the full re-introduction of blasphemy laws in the UK?