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

[Mo_reese]

Yes, and those "responsibilities" form constraints to 'free' speech. Speech that is wholly unconstrained, leads to problems. Hate speech is one obvious example, but only one of ... several. Speech can never be wholly "free". There are always *some* limits. The discussion here, and anywhere else that free speech is discussed, is about what those constraints are (i.e. *should be*), and how far such constraints should stretch. Isn't it?

If the constraints are an individual's own, analyzed, and set, e.g., verifying information first before airing (exercising the freedom responsibly), then I 100% agree with you. But if the constraints are second-party set, e.g., someone else says you must not say xyz, then that might fall under censoring of others' views. 

I agree. I am very skeptical when someone offers to "help" me by protecting me from misinformation. I noticed that the Democratic Aristocracy in the US only started suggesting that they might help with censoring misinformation once people started verbally attacking them for supporting the murder of thousands of children. I am sure the misinformation they want to protect us from is anti-genocide speech. The Aristocracy didn't have any problem when we protested the illegal invasion of Iraq but they want to clamp down now that we are protesting Israel's quest to exterminate over a million people.

[Good_Egg]

...who can say that anyone expresses any opinion with the intention of inciting anything? We are not mind readers.

...A legal doctrine based on that idea would have no teeth at all. How would you give it teeth and police it?

Maybe in the same way that you police the law against attempted murder, or other crimes of intent ? If you point a loaded gun at me and pull the trigger but the bullet misses me, then it seems like the police's lack of mind-reading skills are no great impediment to a charge of attempted murder.

In dealing with speech, is it really so hard to distinguish a descriptive statement about the state of the world as you perceive it, from an imperative statement that tells someone to go and do something about it ?

So it seems that you exaggerate the difficulty.

There is always some difficulty in proving beyond reasonable doubt what you suspect to be true. Our system is supposed to work on the basis that it is better for ten guilty people to get away with crime than for one innocent person to be punished.

If you seek to "protect" people from the wrong of public incitement of crimes against them, but do it by criminalizing those who are innocent of intent to incite such crime, then you are setting up a system that takes away the rights of the innocent in order to have a better chance of prosecuting the guilty.

[Pattern-chaser]

If the constraints are an individual's own, analyzed, and set, e.g., verifying information first before airing (exercising the freedom responsibly), then I 100% agree with you. But if the constraints are second-party set, e.g., someone else says you must not say xyz, then that might fall under censoring of others' views. 

Laws, and the like, apply to all, otherwise they have no point. If you consider constraints to 'free' speech to be censorship, then what is your opinion of the draconian laws that prevent you from murdering your fellow humans, if you should happen to feel like it? They are just as much of a 'constraint', I think, although we wouldn't label anti-murder laws "censorship".

[Pattern-chaser]

I agree. I am very skeptical when someone offers to "help" me by protecting me from misinformation. I noticed that the Democratic Aristocracy in the US only started suggesting that they might help with censoring misinformation once people started verbally attacking them for supporting the murder of thousands of children. I am sure the misinformation they want to protect us from is anti-genocide speech. The Aristocracy didn't have any problem when we protested the illegal invasion of Iraq but they want to clamp down now that we are protesting Israel's quest to exterminate over a million people.

I think the existence of necessary constraints to 'free' speech, and the *misuse* and *misapplication* of such constraints for other purposes, such as you describe here, are two different things, yes?

[Lagayascienza]

No, I do not seek to "protect" anyone against anything. I just point out the legal difficulty of proving intent or otherwise. The doctrine that a person is innocent until proven guilty is the "golden thread" running through our law. So I challenge you to prove that I intended to incite violence by getting on my soap box and railing against Jews or blacks or whites or Muslims or Christians or whomever. You don't thing that it's "hard to distinguish a descriptive statement about the state of the world as you perceive it, from an imperative statement that tells someone to go and do something about it". Well, as a lawyer of 40 years experience, I can say with some confidence that you are wrong.

[Lagayascienza]

...who can say that anyone expresses any opinion with the intention of inciting anything? We are not mind readers.

...A legal doctrine based on that idea would have no teeth at all. How would you give it teeth and police it?

Maybe in the same way that you police the law against attempted murder, or other crimes of intent ? If you point a loaded gun at me and pull the trigger but the bullet misses me, then it seems like the police's lack of mind-reading skills are no great impediment to a charge of attempted murder.

(Apologies for the double post)

In dealing with speech, is it really so hard to distinguish a descriptive statement about the state of the world as you perceive it, from an imperative statement that tells someone to go and do something about it ?

So it seems that you exaggerate the difficulty.

There is always some difficulty in proving beyond reasonable doubt what you suspect to be true. Our system is supposed to work on the basis that it is better for ten guilty people to get away with crime than for one innocent person to be punished.

If you seek to "protect" people from the wrong of public incitement of crimes against them, but do it by criminalizing those who are innocent of intent to incite such crime, then you are setting up a system that takes away the rights of the innocent in order to have a better chance of prosecuting the guilty.

No, I do not seek to "protect" anyone against anything. I just point out the legal difficulty of proving intent or otherwise. The doctrine that a person is innocent until proven guilty is the "golden thread" running through our law. So I challenge you to prove that I intended to incite violence by getting on my soap box and railing against Jews or blacks or whites or Muslims or Christians or whomever. You don't thing that it's "hard to distinguish a descriptive statement about the state of the world as you perceive it, from an imperative statement that tells someone to go and do something about it". Well, as a lawyer of 40 years experience, I can say with some confidence that you are wrong.

[Sy Borg]

I thought the system worked well about 20 years ago. There were hate laws that prevented people from, say, seeking the extermination of Jews, and these were enforced fairly evenly.

Today's laws are unevenly enforced, with calls to exterminate Jews going unpunished while any complaints about violence perpetrated by Islamic migrants are treated as hate speech. This has resulted in a sense of entitlement in the latter, who have been allowed to bully and intimidate Jews with impunity. Now they have burnt down a synagogue in Melbourne, where indulgence of Muslim aggression has been strongest.

[Mo_reese]

I agree. I am very skeptical when someone offers to "help" me by protecting me from misinformation. I noticed that the Democratic Aristocracy in the US only started suggesting that they might help with censoring misinformation once people started verbally attacking them for supporting the murder of thousands of children. I am sure the misinformation they want to protect us from is anti-genocide speech. The Aristocracy didn't have any problem when we protested the illegal invasion of Iraq but they want to clamp down now that we are protesting Israel's quest to exterminate over a million people.

I think the existence of necessary constraints to 'free' speech, and the *misuse* and *misapplication* of such constraints for other purposes, such as you describe here, are two different things, yes?

Yes I agree, however, I believe that there is a greater danger from those that want to stifle free speech under the guise of protecting us from misinformation.

The best protection from misinformation is openness and truth not closing sources of "possible misinformation". TikTok, a source of alternate information is being silenced by the government. Twitter and FaceBook are under the strict control of very wealthy men.

There can be no mistake but that the US Oligarchy wants to strictly control the people. No free speech social media, a biased main-stream media, no protests, silencing investigative journalists, etc.

[Joule Mwendwa]

Laws, and the like, apply to all, otherwise they have no point. If you consider constraints to 'free' speech to be censorship, then what is your opinion of the draconian laws that prevent you from murdering your fellow humans, if you should happen to feel like it? They are just as much of a 'constraint', I think, although we wouldn't label anti-murder laws "censorship".

I agree. But let's use an example like "don't use free speech to incite violence." If I were to say there are only two genders and someone got angered by my words and retaliated with violence, would I have crossed the constraints of free speech to cause violence? Am I the same as someone else who said we should kill transgender people, and they got angered and things got messy? I think even the constraints too also need to be redefined as much as censorship needs to.

[Sy Borg]

It should be easy. Outlaw extreme hate speech and enforce the laws. "Extreme hate speech" can be taken as per commonsense - incitement to violence. Criticism is not an incitement to violence.

Calling for violence against individuals or purported groups can be controlled by laws already in place decades ago.

I acknowledge that humans can be lumped into groups like any other species, but I do not like the idea of basing philosophy on demographic categories. These so-called communities do not exist. A black person in the Congo is no more like a black person in the US than a white person in Argentina is akin to a white person in Finland. No, mostly (in the west) you have local and online communities that are largely cosmopolitan, with a few racist ghettoes.

It's odd how, not long ago, academics asserted that race did not exist and it was inherently racist to believe in race. Now they assert that race is arguably the most important aspect of a human being, and it's racist to be "colour-blind". Yet there's not been a mea culpa about their obvious cognitive dissonance here. As in OrweIl's Oceanea, you are just supposed to shift your beliefs around to fit current decisions.

IMO, if someone isn't trying to incite violence against individuals or many people, it's probably best that they are allowed their say. Let the ideas battle it out in a game of selection. May the strongest ideas win.

[Pattern-chaser]

[...]
I am sure the misinformation they want to protect us from is anti-genocide speech.
[...]

I think the existence of necessary constraints to 'free' speech, and the *misuse* and *misapplication* of such constraints for other purposes, such as you describe here, are two different things, yes?

Yes I agree, however, I believe that there is a greater danger from those that want to stifle free speech under the guise of protecting us from misinformation.

The best protection from misinformation is openness and truth not closing sources of "possible misinformation". TikTok, a source of alternate information is being silenced by the government. Twitter and FaceBook are under the strict control of very wealthy men.

There can be no mistake but that the US Oligarchy wants to strictly control the people. No free speech social media, a biased main-stream media, no protests, silencing investigative journalists, etc.

Ah, those who peddle misinformation, deliberately and intentionally, have been around for a very long time, doing what they do, presumably for their own purposes. They are the enemies of all, I think, but I don't think they really have much to do with the sensible, common-sense constraints that belong with "free speech".

IMO, the misinformationistas are criminals because of what they do, seeking to deceive for their own purposes and advantage. 'Criminal deception', maybe? But nothing to do with free speech, that I can see.

I agree with what you're saying, but I find it confusing when you conflate misinformationistas with those who would unreasonably constrain free speech.

[Pattern-chaser]

Laws, and the like, apply to all, otherwise they have no point. If you consider constraints to 'free' speech to be censorship, then what is your opinion of the draconian laws that prevent you from murdering your fellow humans, if you should happen to feel like it? They are just as much of a 'constraint', I think, although we wouldn't label anti-murder laws "censorship".

I agree. But let's use an example like "don't use free speech to incite violence." If I were to say there are only two genders and someone got angered by my words and retaliated with violence, would I have crossed the constraints of free speech to cause violence? Am I the same as someone else who said we should kill transgender people, and they got angered and things got messy? I think even the constraints too also need to be redefined as much as censorship needs to.

When we tighten our focus to look at individual cases, even made-up ones, things get complicated. The real world has a way of doing that to things. And it does it to everything, covering all issues, not just this one. That's life.


Although there is an obvious relationship between censorship and the restriction of free speech, I wonder how close that relationship is? You write as if all constraints applied to free speech are "censorship", but I disagree. To prevent you from hate speech, intended to incite and promote violence, is not the same as censoring information that the public need and deserve.

By mixing them up, it looks like you seek to disguise one with the other, to make reasonable limits look like someone is trying to silence you.

[Mo_reese]

I agree with what you're saying, but I find it confusing when you conflate misinformationistas with those who would unreasonably constrain free speech.

I don't understand the difference you are going for. Would you provide definitions and examples if possible.

My point is that while there is misinformation out there, there is also the danger of those that would suppress free speech under the guise of protecting us from misinformation.
During the Iraq War the public didn't find out about the atrocities of the war from the news media. The news media gets their money from corporations that profit from wars and don't like negative news. The New York Times was (is) possibly the worst. We did hear about some atrocities from whistle-blowers but they got severely punished.
However, today we have social media that has been reporting directly on the atrocities of war and genocide. The ruling powers do not like this and want to shut that free speech down. They are using the “protecting” us from misinformation justification. TikTok will be controlled by someone in the 1% class as Twitter and FaceBook are now.

[Pattern-chaser]

I agree with what you're saying, but I find it confusing when you conflate misinformationistas with those who would unreasonably constrain free speech.

I don't understand the difference you are going for. Would you provide definitions and examples if possible.

1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s).
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views.

[Mo_reese]

I agree with what you're saying, but I find it confusing when you conflate misinformationistas with those who would unreasonably constrain free speech.

I don't understand the difference you are going for. Would you provide definitions and examples if possible.

1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s).
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views.

Thanks for the clarification.
1. Those who would suppress or distort information to promote their own cause(s) are like Fox News and the NYT
2. Those who seek to prevent the personal expression of views are like the US government.