Philosophy Discussion Forums

Few would disagree that if we were all able to speak freely the world would be a better place. But as you say, there is a flip side to free speech. There is propaganda by parties and organizations whose aim is to kill free speech. Should those who would eliminate free speech if they got into power be able to disseminate their propaganda? And then there is hate speech which can cause harm to vulnerable minorities. The difficulty is in striking a balance. On what basis do we decide whose free speech should be limited?

Freedom of speech, like any other freedom, comes with responsibilities. It’s important to avoid using this freedom to lie and fuel hatred, while authorities, media, and individuals should refrain from censoring honest and fact-based expressions simply to sell only their "side of the story". In my opinion, a world where freedom of speech is exercised responsibly and with honesty would be a better place to live. The focus shouldn’t be on limiting one side or the other but on ensuring integrity in expression.

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑December 1st, 2024, 8:20 pm Few would disagree that if we were all able to speak freely the world would be a better place. But as you say, there is a flip side to free speech. There is propaganda by parties and organizations whose aim is to kill free speech. Should those who would eliminate free speech if they got into power be able to disseminate their propaganda? And then there is hate speech which can cause harm to vulnerable minorities. The difficulty is in striking a balance. On what basis do we decide whose free speech should be limited?

Freedom of speech, like any other freedom, comes with responsibilities. It’s important to avoid using this freedom to lie and fuel hatred, while authorities, media, and individuals should refrain from censoring honest and fact-based expressions simply to sell only their "side of the story". In my opinion, a world where freedom of speech is exercised responsibly and with honesty would be a better place to live. The focus shouldn’t be on limiting one side or the other but on ensuring integrity in expression.

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑December 1st, 2024, 8:20 pm On what basis do we decide whose free speech should be limited?

Nobody's "free speech" should be limited, in the sense that the OP defines it

Joule Mwendwa wrote: Free speech allows individuals to express their opinions without fear of being censored, hurt, or subjected to legal consequences.

That doesn't mean that no speech-act should be against the law.

The state can prohibit the incitement of crime, prohibut defamation (falsehoods detrimental to an individual's reputation), prohibit breach of contract (e.g. speech that violates a non-disclosure agreement).

What it may not do, under this view, is prohibit expression of opinion as such, for a particular category of opinions (usually those opinions which dissent from those held by the government of the day).

Maybe the question is whether that is a clear and valid distinction ?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2024, 4:48 am

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑December 1st, 2024, 8:20 pm On what basis do we decide whose free speech should be limited?

Nobody's "free speech" should be limited, in the sense that the OP defines it

Joule Mwendwa wrote: Free speech allows individuals to express their opinions without fear of being censored, hurt, or subjected to legal consequences.

That doesn't mean that no speech-act should be against the law.

The state can prohibit the incitement of crime, prohibut defamation (falsehoods detrimental to an individual's reputation), prohibit breach of contract (e.g. speech that violates a non-disclosure agreement).

What it may not do, under this view, is prohibit expression of opinion as such, for a particular category of opinions (usually those opinions which dissent from those held by the government of the day).

Maybe the question is whether that is a clear and valid distinction ?

So you are basically saying that anyone should be allowed to say anything provided that it does not defame, breach contract or incite crime. Defamation and breach of contract are not too problematic legally. But who decides what is likely to incite crime? If I get on a soap box in public and express opinions such as that all Jews are dirty money-grubbing parasites, or that all blacks are lazy thugs who wouldn’t work in an iron lung, would that be ok? If not, why not?

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2024, 5:24 am


So you are basically saying that anyone should be allowed to say anything provided that it does not defame, breach contract or incite crime. Defamation and breach of contract are not too problematic legally. But who decides what is likely to incite crime? If I get on a soap box in public and express opinions such as that all Jews are dirty money-grubbing parasites, or that all blacks are lazy thugs who wouldn’t work in an iron lung, would that be ok? If not, why not?

In my opinion, that will be regarded as attacking a group. The reason is you'll have no proof Jews (all of them) grabbed anyone's money or that Blacks (all of them) are lazy thugs. Maybe a fraction of people from those groups did do what you accuse them of doing; the remaining fraction did nothing wrong, and so that will be an attack on them.

Also remember that even facts can incite hatred and opposition, but the key point is that they are facts. We don't need a body to decide which opinions violate international laws of free speech; we just need to make our opinions fact-based so that even opposers deep down know you're right.

The problem with restricting free speech is choosing the arbiter. An example, people in England are being pinged for hate speech on social media for declaring that there are only two genders. While it's a simplistic view that ignores millennia of cross-gendered people in all societies, it's not hate speech as such. Crimes by illegal migrants tend to be downplayed or ignored by a media, whose business to some extent depends on high immigration levels.

That's the issue with policing misinformation - the public can be mislead by wrongful claims or by burying true information. How do we police lying by omission, which an be as harmful as lies? The situation reminds of the trolley problem, where a person who actively causes the trolley to run down one person is generally deemed more culpable than one who does nothing and lets the trolley run over multiple people.

The state can prohibit the incitement of crime, prohibut defamation (falsehoods detrimental to an individual's reputation), prohibit breach of contract (e.g. speech that violates a non-disclosure agreement).

What it may not do, under this view, is prohibit expression of opinion as such, for a particular category of opinions (usually those opinions which dissent from those held by the government of the day).

Maybe the question is whether that is a clear and valid distinction ?

So you are basically saying that anyone should be allowed to say anything provided that it does not defame, breach contract or incite crime.

I'm making the distinction between on the one hand crimes that involve speech-acts (at least some of which are hopefully not controversial) and on the other hand criminalizing the expression of particular opinions.

And suggesting that what we mean by "free speech" relates to the latter.

Not claiming that my list of crimes that involve speech is exhaustive - there are probably others, such as fraud.

But who decides what is likely to incite crime? If I get on a soap box in public and express opinions such as that all Jews are dirty money-grubbing parasites, or that all blacks are lazy thugs who wouldn’t work in an iron lung, would that be ok? If not, why not?

If your rant from a soap box includes the assertion that something should be done about these purported facts (which are clearly untrue) and you suggest that mob violence might be an effective solution, then yes you might possibly be guilty of attempting to incite a crime. Express the same views calmly and quietly to your elderly neighbour in the corner of the pub, and you're clearly not.

If you're saying that there is a grey area where the incitement is implicit, I don't necessarily disagree. But I reject the suggestion that it is right to criminalize the expression of opinion as such simply in order to make it easier for the police to prosecute the genuine wrong of incitement.

So you agree that there is a gray area. But you disagree that the expression of opinions should be criminalized as long as opinions are not expressed for the purpose of inciting violence. Is that your position?

Joule Mwendwa wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2024, 9:15 am Freedom of speech, like any other freedom, comes with responsibilities. It’s important to avoid using this freedom to lie and fuel hatred, while authorities, media, and individuals should refrain from censoring honest and fact-based expressions simply to sell only their "side of the story". In my opinion, a world where freedom of speech is exercised responsibly and with honesty would be a better place to live. The focus shouldn’t be on limiting one side or the other but on ensuring integrity in expression.

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?

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑December 4th, 2024, 5:48 am ...you disagree that the expression of opinions should be criminalized as long as opinions are not expressed for the purpose of inciting violence. Is that your position?

I think we agree that there is a moral wrong of inciting others to do wrong. And this is reflected in law as a crime of inciting others to commit a crime (of violence or otherwise).

Then the philosophical question is about our understanding of what incitement is.

Seems to me that there are two possibilities.

One is to argue that incitement is a crime of intent. That acting with the intent that a crime be committed by others is itself a crime, a deed worthy of punishment. (Even if circumstances mean that those others do not in fact commit the crime, in the same way that there is a wrong of attempted murder even if the attempt fails with nobody hurt).

The other possibility is to argue that incitement is somehow an inherent property of the words uttered, regardless of the intent of the utterer. So that, for example, that element of Scott's philosophy that says "there is no should" is a crime because it can be read as an incitement, regardless of Scott's intention.

That version seems to me to require someone to set themselves up as the one true arbiter of what words mean. And so I go with the notion that incitement is about intent. But I'm open to reasoned argument...

So you think that the expression of opinions should not be criminalized if the purpose or intent of expressing those opinions is not to incite violence. If that is what you mean, then who can say that anyone expresses any opinion with the intention of inciting anything? We are not mind readers. I might get on my soap box and say that all Jews are dirty money-grubbing parasites, or that all blacks are lazy thugs who wouldn’t work in an iron lung, and I should be fine as long as my intent was not to provoke violence. And who could prove that incitement to violence was, or was not, my intent? A legal doctrine based on that idea would have no teeth at all. How would you give it teeth and police it?

Free Speech used to be a tool whereby powerful actors were able to mobilise public opinion. This worked whilst there was a level playing field that enabled a small range of opinions to be expressed within certain safe limits. Generally those limits tended to favour the homelands and allies of those people, who by patronage were able to server their own interests whilst serving the interests of their governments.
Now the impact and range is global, and the number of powerful actors smaller. This smaller number of actors; by whom I mean Elon Musk has little or no loyalty to anyone but himself. Being richer than god is able to buy whom he likes and if they do not like it he has the power to ruin them.
Trump was a well known skeptic of EVs. Musk bought Trump with $100mill, and the very next day Trump was in favour of EVs. It is as simple as that.
Musk could be a serial killer but would simply get Trump to pardon him.
Now Musk is turning his gaze on the UK.. He's looking at the parties like a shopping list. Having already helped in the destruction of the ex-Labour leader Jeremy COrbyn, he now is looking at boosting the Brexiter Farage.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 4th, 2024, 8:31 am
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.