The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

'freedom of speech'

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Steve3007 » November 8th, 2018, 6:19 am

BG, I've read it and I understand the point you are making, and how it expands on the small section that I quoted. I take your point. But I just wanted to make my own point about the difficulty with this defence of "I am just stating facts" that is used by some people, regardless of what end of any notional political spectrum they are on.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Burning ghost » November 8th, 2018, 6:26 am

Press him for evidence then. Like I said, the more I’ve used reason the more he shuts up. He only responds to those he manages to provoke to tit-for-tat insults.

If you start a thread about anti-semitism then people will express their views. The major proble I see in that area is conflating Israel, Jewishness and Zionism. Given that Sausage Dog appears to be an admirer of Nietzsche I can only assume he understands that Nietzsche held the Jewish community in high regard - although I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if he didn’t know that.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Steve3007 » November 8th, 2018, 6:44 am

Burning ghost wrote:Press him for evidence then....
Been there. Done it. He has been on this site for a year now and we are well beyond that stage. We are well and truly into the "never wrestle with a pig because you get dirty and the pig likes it." stage. As I've said to him in a recent post, I will not be talking with him again except to exchange personal contact details so that he can look a 12 year old girl in the eye and call her a stinking, sub-human, negro ape. Attempting an evidence based discussion about the taxonomic family of which homo sapiens is a member is not remotely relevant to that.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Burning ghost » November 8th, 2018, 10:44 am

Makes sense. Like I said, I’ve tried in places and when it comes down to the bottom line he has nothing of much substance to back up views - politically in regards to conservativism and such he has managed to bring up some interesting points.

Some people get bored and thrive by outraging people; and there are usually enough people trying to be outraged too.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3324
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by LuckyR » November 8th, 2018, 8:46 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
November 7th, 2018, 10:07 am
This is a re-boot of an existing "freedom of speech" thread. Some issues to consider:

I think a widely accepted view of this concept is that people should be free to say whatever they like so long as it does not constitute telling factual lies about people (slander and libel), does not constitute an incitement to violence or other infringement of people's safety and liberty and does not incite various other forms of unrest that are likely to cause harm ("shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre" being the classic example).

Are these kinds of criteria clear-cut enough to be able to create unambiguous legislation that can clearly show when the words spoken ought to be deemed criminal?

In the UK, very recently, there has been a case of some people who, in the garden of their own home, set fire to a model of a residential tower block (Grenfell Tower) in West London which burned down, a while ago, with the loss of many lives. Outrage was expressed and the people were arrested. Why should they be arrested, yet people who set fire to an effigy of a human being called Guy Fawkes, every year on November 5th, are allowed to do so freely?

Suppose you are walking along the street with your 12 year old daughter and a man comes up to you and screams at you and your daughter that, as a matter of objective fact, you and your daughter are stinking negro apes. Should this act be regarded as criminal? Would it be different if he said it in a quieter voice? Would it make a difference if he said it via the medium of the internet?

Does freedom of speech apply only to words, or could it include images? Suppose this man were to send your 12 year old daughter a photograph of his penis via the internet? Is he simply exercising his lawful right to free speech and your daughter is perfectly free to ignore this picture? If he described to her his penis using words, would this make a difference?
You are missing a few very important scenarios where speech is not only not protected but is illegal.

For example extortion, criminal harassment, intimidation, hate speech and fraud

Taken to extremes your example would fall into one of these categories
"As usual... it depends."

Steve3007
Posts: 5716
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Steve3007 » November 9th, 2018, 2:51 am

LuckyR wrote:You are missing a few very important scenarios where speech is not only not protected but is illegal.

For example extortion, criminal harassment, intimidation, hate speech and fraud

Taken to extremes your example would fall into one of these categories
Of the examples you've given here, the example of mine that you've highlighted in red would presumably come under the heading of "hate speech". But I think there are lots of people who would dispute that "hate speech" should be regarded as a crime. They would argue that it is too subjective, that it criminalizes offence and that offence is something that is taken, not given. What is regarded as offensive is, therefore, beyond the control of the speaker, they would argue.

In the US, in particular, I think this point would be made because of the constitutional commitment to free speech. A classic example would be the Westboro Baptist Church who used to picket the funerals of dead military servicemen shouting and waving placards saying that the servicemen died because the US military tolerates "fagats"1 in the military. Is something like this "hate speech"? It presumably causes a great deal of offense and emotional pain to the grieving families. But are they simply exercising their right to free speech?

But also, I suppose, your example of "criminal harassment" or "intimidation" might apply depending on the manor in which the information is conveyed. Conveying it in the form of a shout in the face would probably be regarded by most people as more intimidating than conveying it as a written online message.


Note 1: I had to deliberately misspell this colloquial American work for homosexual. Funny. It means a bundle of sticks used for fuel. I don't know what I'm supposed to do if I want to refer to one of those.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3324
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by LuckyR » November 9th, 2018, 3:05 am

Steve3007 wrote:
November 9th, 2018, 2:51 am
LuckyR wrote:You are missing a few very important scenarios where speech is not only not protected but is illegal.

For example extortion, criminal harassment, intimidation, hate speech and fraud

Taken to extremes your example would fall into one of these categories
Of the examples you've given here, the example of mine that you've highlighted in red would presumably come under the heading of "hate speech". But I think there are lots of people who would dispute that "hate speech" should be regarded as a crime. They would argue that it is too subjective, that it criminalizes offence and that offence is something that is taken, not given. What is regarded as offensive is, therefore, beyond the control of the speaker, they would argue.

In the US, in particular, I think this point would be made because of the constitutional commitment to free speech. A classic example would be the Westboro Baptist Church who used to picket the funerals of dead military servicemen shouting and waving placards saying that the servicemen died because the US military tolerates "fagats"1 in the military. Is something like this "hate speech"? It presumably causes a great deal of offense and emotional pain to the grieving families. But are they simply exercising their right to free speech?

But also, I suppose, your example of "criminal harassment" or "intimidation" might apply depending on the manor in which the information is conveyed. Conveying it in the form of a shout in the face would probably be regarded by most people as more intimidating than conveying it as a written online message.


Note 1: I had to deliberately misspell this colloquial American work for homosexual. Funny. It means a bundle of sticks used for fuel. I don't know what I'm supposed to do if I want to refer to one of those.
Of course a lawyer would be better suited to correctly answer your questions, however in my opinion your example is at it's core more about intimidation (weakness/fear) than hate.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply