What philosophy offends you most?

[Pattern-chaser]

Any philosophy that advocates for limiting speech. Freedom of speech is the heart of a virtuous society; therefore, limiting speech is the dream of the Devil himself.

...just as long as 'freedom of speech' is not interpreted to mean 'freedom to demean, ridicule or insult, with impunity'.

[Ecurb]

Any philosophy that advocates for limiting speech. Freedom of speech is the heart of a virtuous society; therefore, limiting speech is the dream of the Devil himself.

...just as long as 'freedom of speech' is not interpreted to mean 'freedom to demean, ridicule or insult, with impunity'.

Do you believe that nobody should be allowed to say, "Donald Trump is an egotistical sociopath" with impunity?

Most countries limit freedom of speech with libel and slander laws (as well as copyrights and laws prohibiting fraud or misleading advertising). The U.K.'s laws prohibiting slander are more restrictive than those in the U.S. I prefer the U.S.'s protection of freedom of speech. The slippery slope exists; once we start banning "hate speech", soon some President will ban calling Trump a sociopath.

[Pattern-chaser]

Any philosophy that advocates for limiting speech. Freedom of speech is the heart of a virtuous society; therefore, limiting speech is the dream of the Devil himself.

...just as long as 'freedom of speech' is not interpreted to mean 'freedom to demean, ridicule or insult, with impunity'.

Do you believe that nobody should be allowed to say, "Donald Trump is an egotistical sociopath" with impunity?

I believe the hurt and harm done by hate speech is real and widespread. In my view, this harm trumps () the beneficial aspects of 'freedom of speech'. Not that FoS is a Bad Thing, but it can definitely be taken too far IMO, and being taken too far definitely includes the ability to say anything about anyone with impunity. Preventing hate speech is much more important than protecting freedom of speech. IMO.

Of course, as is always the case with such issues, it's the grey areas that cause the most problems. Your question, for example, seems to lie in a grey area.

[Ecurb]

Do you believe that nobody should be allowed to say, "Donald Trump is an egotistical sociopath" with impunity?

I believe the hurt and harm done by hate speech is real and widespread. In my view, this harm trumps () the beneficial aspects of 'freedom of speech'. Not that FoS is a Bad Thing, but it can definitely be taken too far IMO, and being taken too far definitely includes the ability to say anything about anyone with impunity. Preventing hate speech is much more important than protecting freedom of speech. IMO.

Of course, as is always the case with such issues, it's the grey areas that cause the most problems. Your question, for example, seems to lie in a grey area.

It's a tricky issue. One question is: what do you mean by "impunity"? Some insults led to challenges (in the past). I assume we don't want to return to dueling, but the question remains as to what the government's role should be. Clearly, some forms of hate speech are socially and culturally unacceptable and the speaker may be subject to ridicule, social isolation, or (even) a punch in the nose. I wonder, though, about the danger of the government getting involved. It inevitably leads to laws against "insulting" the king, or the emir, or the Prince, as that Saudi woman studying at Leeds University is now well aware.

[GE Morton]

Any philosophy that advocates for limiting speech. Freedom of speech is the heart of a virtuous society; therefore, limiting speech is the dream of the Devil himself.

...just as long as 'freedom of speech' is not interpreted to mean 'freedom to demean, ridicule or insult, with impunity'.

Yep, freedom of speech (in the US) protects all of those as well. It also protects "hate speech."

[Pattern-chaser]

Any philosophy that advocates for limiting speech. Freedom of speech is the heart of a virtuous society; therefore, limiting speech is the dream of the Devil himself.

...just as long as 'freedom of speech' is not interpreted to mean 'freedom to demean, ridicule or insult, with impunity'.

Yep, freedom of speech (in the US) protects all of those as well. It also protects "hate speech."

You mean it protects against hate speech, or that it permits hate speech? The former, I hope?

[GE Morton]

You mean it protects against hate speech, or that it permits hate speech? The former, I hope?

It protects "hate speech." I.e., government may not restrict or punish it.

"Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no 'hate speech' exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ted_States

[GE Morton]

It protects "hate speech." I.e., government may not restrict or punish it.

Follow-up:

Matal v. Tam (2017):

"This case concerns a dance-rock band’s application for federal trademark registration of the band’s name, 'The Slants.' 'Slants' is a derogatory term for persons of Asian descent, and members of the band are Asian-Americans. But the band members believe that by taking that slur as the name of their group, they will help to “reclaim” the term and drain its denigrating force. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application based on a provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may 'disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute' any 'persons, living or dead.' 15 U. S. C. §1052(a). We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was unanimous.

[Pattern-chaser]

You mean it protects against hate speech, or that it permits hate speech? The former, I hope?

It protects "hate speech." I.e., government may not restrict or punish it.

I find that ... disappointing. Most civilised countries do otherwise, but hey ho...

[GE Morton]

You mean it protects against hate speech, or that it permits hate speech? The former, I hope?

It protects "hate speech." I.e., government may not restrict or punish it.

I find that ... disappointing. Most civilised countries do otherwise, but hey ho...

Most civilized countries don't understand the meaning of "free speech." They take it to mean, "Speech consistent with the views and policies of our rulers," or perhaps, " . . .of the majority."

[Ecurb]

You mean it protects against hate speech, or that it permits hate speech? The former, I hope?

It protects "hate speech." I.e., government may not restrict or punish it.

I find that ... disappointing. Most civilised countries do otherwise, but hey ho...

Most civilized countries don't understand the meaning of "free speech." They take it to mean, "Speech consistent with the views and policies of our rulers," or perhaps, " . . .of the majority."

Salmon Rushdie was just stabbed. His books are banned in many countries because they "insult Islam". Is this the kind of restriction on hate speech you support, Pattern? Or perhaps insulting religious believers is OK, but insulting people for their race or sexual orientation is not? Who is to decide? The government? The majority?

I think it's reasonbable to ban certain forms of speech in the economic sector: copyrights, laws against fraud or deceptive advertising make sense (although I think we could use some more freedom there, too). Banning speech because we think it's rude, or we don't like it, opens a can of worms that can never be put back in the can. Of course "civilized countries" (like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Myanmar, Indonesia, etc., as well as many European countries) seem to see things differently. I'm glad I don't live in them.

[Sy Borg]

It's all about fear of the slippery slope.

Advocates for vulnerable groups fear that advocates of free speech will permit people to incite hatred and violence, even riots or purges, eg. various fascist groups like the Proud Boys.

Advocates for free speech fear that protectors of the weak won't stop with actual attacks, but will nitpick every trivial potential slight, even if it's satire made in the right spirit, eg. criticism of racism in Fawlty Towers episodes, even though the show was satirising bigots (as did All in the Family).

Each side has a point.

While the slippery slope dynamic is known as a logical fallacy, the fault is only assuming that a schism is necessarily prone to slippery slope escalation. However, sometimes the slippery slope does exist. Logically, that's how the concept came about.

In this instance, each side side of the free speech debate has a tendency to overstep, if given an inch they will take mile, as a cliché goes. The political correctness needs to be wound back IMO, to ease up on the censorship and keep focused on the big issues. The vacuous side of the political left tends to get distracted. The Greens wanted to save nature. But group after group - seeing a chance opening to be heard - clambered on, each wanting to be saved. The Greens' policy brief ballooned into al manner of causes. Now the Greens are so caught up in sticky social justice issues that they have been unable to effectively lobby for the environment. Meanwhile, the vacuous aspect of the right is distracted by whatever their masters tell them to be distracted by, be it a war, gender, race, sexuality or poor people behaving badly.

Ultimately, the more people there are, the less freedom is possible.

[GE Morton]

It's all about fear of the slippery slope.

Advocates for vulnerable groups fear that advocates of free speech will permit people to incite hatred and violence, even riots or purges, eg. various fascist groups like the Proud Boys.

I disagree that slippery-slope concerns motivate leftist and "woke" demands to restrict speech. While hatreds can and will provoke violence by some people, it usually does not, and when it does there are already laws covering it. Verbal "incitement" to commit an illegal act is also illegal, when there is a "clear and present danger" that the illegal act will result.

The motivation for "woke" insistence on speech restrictions is deeper, reflecting their atavistic longing for an egalitarian, communitarian, neo-tribal society, a "brotherhood" in which everyone "loves one's neighbor" and directs their efforts to "the good of the whole." Kumbaya!

I.e., the same archaic, unsatisfiable longing which has motivated every destructive -ism of the last century.

[Sy Borg]

It's all about fear of the slippery slope.

Advocates for vulnerable groups fear that advocates of free speech will permit people to incite hatred and violence, even riots or purges, eg. various fascist groups like the Proud Boys.

I disagree that slippery-slope concerns motivate leftist and "woke" demands to restrict speech. While hatreds can and will provoke violence by some people, it usually does not, and when it does there are already laws covering it. Verbal "incitement" to commit an illegal act is also illegal, when there is a "clear and present danger" that the illegal act will result.

The motivation for "woke" insistence on speech restrictions is deeper, reflecting their atavistic longing for an egalitarian, communitarian, neo-tribal society, a "brotherhood" in which everyone "loves one's neighbor" and directs their efforts to "the good of the whole." Kumbaya!

I.e., the same archaic, unsatisfiable longing which has motivated every destructive -ism of the last century.

I disagree with the content, and note a fair bit of tribal self-indulgence there

When we look at the history of the groups being defended by the left (not "woke" [sic]), there's good reason for them to fear the results of hate speech - many have died or been traumatised by those inspired by hate speech. Words can lead to actions. Why else would anyone bother wasting words?

Likewise, the right have a good reason to fear excessive precious censorship for exactly the same reason. They know what happens because unreasonable censorship of well-meaning satire has already happened.

[GE Morton]

Likewise, the right have a good reason to fear excessive precious censorship for exactly the same reason. They know what happens because unreasonable censorship of well-meaning satire has already happened.

Right-wingers have their own speech-restricting agendas. The director of the county library in a town near my city just resigned, because of threats, disruptions of board meetings, a recall petition for 4 members of the library board, made by righties demanding the library not offer certain books (the county is solid Trump country).

“Nothing in my background could have prepared me for the political atmosphere of extremism, militant Christian fundamentalism, intimidation tactics, and threatening behavior currently being employed in the community,” the director said.

Another librarian commented, "“Certainly parents have the right to decide what their children can read, but I don’t think a parent or anyone has the right to tell somebody else what they can or can’t read."

Exactly.