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

[Fried Egg]

No, we're talking about real and actual pain or suffering here, not mild upset. Saying something I didn't really want to hear does not cross the threshold. IMO.

But what is this threshold you talk of? It is nothing but a nebulous, subjective notion that we will never agree on. It can't be the level of hurt for the reasons I have spelt out already. But you have said nothing besides trying to keep to a "middle path" or following "common sense". But these are no guidelines that will help us resolve this issue and certainly not for basing the law on.

I know from things you have previously said that our notion of the "middle path" or "common sense" differs considerably. I'm going to stick to defending free speech. Your way is the road to hell paved with good intentions.

[Good_Egg]

No, we're talking about real and actual pain or suffering here, not mild upset. Saying something I didn't really want to hear does not cross the threshold. IMO.

Is there a difference in kind ? A real line that should not be crossed ? That we can philosophize about ?

Or is it just a difference of degree, where your judgments and mine will differ (based on how strongly we empathize with different individuals and our different sensitivities to different types of emotional hurt) ?

In which case there's little to say about the topic itself - we can do no more than agree to differ in our judgments. But the discussion then turns to why you think law should follow your judgments rather than anyone else's. The sort of God-complex that says that the law should reflect my judgment because I feel it should be so is unattractive and not constructive.

More generally, I tend to agree with "middle way" ideas. We humans are so fallible that some of us will get things wrong in every possible way. So that, as a rule of thumb, the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle. But I look to reason rather than sentiment to guide us in the right path, the path that avoids this error on one side and that error on the other. And I keep hoping you have some of it to offer...

[Fried Egg]

Is there a difference in kind ? A real line that should not be crossed ? That we can philosophize about ?

Or is it just a difference of degree, where your judgments and mine will differ (based on how strongly we empathize with different individuals and our different sensitivities to different types of emotional hurt) ?

The right to free speech cannot depend on social norms or how hurt people claim they are after hearing something that upsets them. This is because social norms do not (necessarily) correspond with the truth and some people may be deeply hurt by hearing the truth.

I do not think it is healthy (for many reasons) to live in a society where the truth can become verboten.

We are focusing a lot here on the issue of hate speech but of course that is only one of the justifications used for censoring free speech. Another common one is the idea of misinformation/disinformation. I mention this here in relation to my above comments about truth. Does this mean that untruths should be censored? I would say not but that's a somewhat different conversation...

[Pattern-chaser]

No, we're talking about real and actual pain or suffering here, not mild upset. Saying something I didn't really want to hear does not cross the threshold. IMO.

But what is this threshold you talk of? It is nothing but a nebulous, subjective notion that we will never agree on.

Sorry, it's the threshold between "suffering" and "mild upset".

It can't be the level of hurt for the reasons I have spelt out already. But you have said nothing besides trying to keep to a "middle path" or following "common sense". But these are no guidelines that will help us resolve this issue and certainly not for basing the law on.

Exactly. There *are* no such "guidelines". Not formal or 'objective' ones, anyway. There are almost *no* universals that we can adopt. In practice, each and every case we consider is different. No fixed law can justly cover that, can it?

[Pattern-chaser]

No, we're talking about real and actual pain or suffering here, not mild upset. Saying something I didn't really want to hear does not cross the threshold. IMO.

Is there a difference in kind ? A real line that should not be crossed ? That we can philosophize about ?

Or is it just a difference of degree, where your judgments and mine will differ (based on how strongly we empathize with different individuals and our different sensitivities to different types of emotional hurt) ?

In which case there's little to say about the topic itself - we can do no more than agree to differ in our judgments. But the discussion then turns to why you think law should follow your judgments rather than anyone else's. The sort of God-complex that says that the law should reflect my judgment because I feel it should be so is unattractive and not constructive.

More generally, I tend to agree with "middle way" ideas. We humans are so fallible that some of us will get things wrong in every possible way. So that, as a rule of thumb, the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle. But I look to reason rather than sentiment to guide us in the right path, the path that avoids this error on one side and that error on the other. And I keep hoping you have some of it to offer...

As I've said before, free speech must always come down to where the line is drawn. And I agree that this will end up as a middle path type of situation, or something similar. How can or could it be otherwise?

[Pattern-chaser]

The right to free speech cannot depend on social norms...

But free speech *is* a "social norm". What else could it be? An arbitrary "right" that is only a right because humans say it is, and they enforce that belief upon other humans. There is no objective argument for or against free speech. It exists because we saw a need for it, and so we invented it. Now, we argue about it...

[Fried Egg]

The right to free speech cannot depend on social norms...

But free speech *is* a "social norm". What else could it be? An arbitrary "right" that is only a right because humans say it is, and they enforce that belief upon other humans. There is no objective argument for or against free speech. It exists because we saw a need for it, and so we invented it. Now, we argue about it...

Indeed, it is only something that those concerned about freedom and democracy need care about.

If we are to have free speech though, what we are free to say cannot depends on social norms. Free speech only needs to be defended when it defies social norms.

Nor can the level of suffering people might incur when they hear it be a determining factor. Because there's no reason to believe that hearing the truth won't cause us to suffer.

The truth doesn't need to circumscribe speech as only falsehood can't endure criticism.

[Pattern-chaser]

The right to free speech cannot depend on social norms...

But free speech *is* a "social norm". What else could it be? An arbitrary "right" that is only a right because humans say it is, and they enforce that belief upon other humans. There is no objective argument for or against free speech. It exists because we saw a need for it, and so we invented it. Now, we argue about it...

Indeed, it is only something that those concerned about freedom and democracy need care about.

Wow, that seems a little condescending, don't you think? Only superior beings — those who care about "freedom and democracy" — are bothered about freedom of speech? Only such paragons "need" to care? Wow.

If we are to have free speech though, what we are free to say cannot depends on social norms. Free speech only needs to be defended when it defies social norms.

Nor can the level of suffering people might incur when they hear it be a determining factor. Because there's no reason to believe that hearing the truth won't cause us to suffer.

The truth doesn't need to circumscribe speech as only falsehood can't endure criticism.

So it's ok to cause more or less any level of harm, to preserve the right to insult? Any level of suffering is permissible — isn't that what your words say? I'm sure you don't mean that, do you?

[Fried Egg]

The right to free speech cannot depend on social norms...

But free speech *is* a "social norm". What else could it be? An arbitrary "right" that is only a right because humans say it is, and they enforce that belief upon other humans. There is no objective argument for or against free speech. It exists because we saw a need for it, and so we invented it. Now, we argue about it...

Indeed, it is only something that those concerned about freedom and democracy need care about.

Wow, that seems a little condescending, don't you think? Only superior beings — those who care about "freedom and democracy" — are bothered about freedom of speech? Only such paragons "need" to care? Wow.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But why point out that freedom of speech is only a social norm unless you want to liberate yourself from having to care about it? I make no claim of superiority. I don't deny that free speech is a social norm, only insist that it is integral to a free and democratic society.

If we are to have free speech though, what we are free to say cannot depends on social norms. Free speech only needs to be defended when it defies social norms.

Nor can the level of suffering people might incur when they hear it be a determining factor. Because there's no reason to believe that hearing the truth won't cause us to suffer.

The truth doesn't need to circumscribe speech as only falsehood can't endure criticism.

So it's ok to cause more or less any level of harm, to preserve the right to insult? Any level of suffering is permissible — isn't that what your words say? I'm sure you don't mean that, do you?

Let me turn it around: Should a true statement become verboten because there is someone who would experience extreme emotional anguish and trauma to hear it uttered?

[Sy Borg]

The trouble is there's been scope creep on the concept of hate speech. Once, hate speech was referring to people as vermin or calling for them to be beaten up or killed.

Now - with people treating the slippery slope as an inevitability rather than a logical fallacy - even saying nasty things is criminalised, which destroys the opportunity for people to criticise certain groups at all.

Now the media hides the involvement of Muslims in violent crime and their role in the rise in DV. Why? To promote social order - but that order was deliberately risked by the government they act as a mouthpiece for. Why? To boost GDP (on paper, while GDP per capita falls).

[Good_Egg]

As I've said before, free speech must always come down to where the line is drawn. And I agree that this will end up as a middle path type of situation, or something similar. How can or could it be otherwise?

When I talk about drawing a line, I mean distinguishing this from that. E.g. distinguishing an intent to insult and put down from expressing a sincere worldview which some may find unflattering.

When you talk about drawing a line, I read you as meaning apply a utilitarian test of whether (in your personal value-system) the gain is worth the pain.

Am I misreading you ? If so, is there any chance you could say what it is that you think the line you draw is separating ?

If not, then the answer is yes of course it could be otherwise - we could be principled instead of utilitarian.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't deny that free speech is a social norm, only insist that it is integral to a free and democratic society.

You are drifting away from my intended meaning(s). I don't agree with this, but that isn't the issue here. Everyone believes as they see fit, you and I included.

My point focusses-in a little more, to where the line is drawn. All countries, nations, societies, etc., place certain limits on 'freedom' of speech. It's where that line is drawn where we all differ.

Let me turn it around: Should a true statement become verboten because there is someone who would experience extreme emotional anguish and trauma to hear it uttered?

Taking the clear and literal sense of the words you have chosen here, then yes, absolutely. There is no excuse for knowingly causing harm to another. OK, in theory, there could be a particular set of circumstances where speaking prevented more harm than staying silent did, but that's just a distraction. The real world is messy like that. It always has been, and always will be. Usually, the best we can do is to choose the least evil option available to us.



Part of the problem here is that maybe we aren't looking at it the right way? My personal view is that pretty much all courteous speech should be permitted. This covers hate-speech, and a lot more besides. But everything that is covered is unimportant. The important meaning that you wish to speak out is wholly retained. Nothing is lost except for one's 'right' to insult others, maybe leading to violence or the like. Is that approach really so bad?

[Fried Egg]

I don't deny that free speech is a social norm, only insist that it is integral to a free and democratic society.

You are drifting away from my intended meaning(s). I don't agree with this, but that isn't the issue here. Everyone believes as they see fit, you and I included.

My point focusses-in a little more, to where the line is drawn. All countries, nations, societies, etc., place certain limits on 'freedom' of speech. It's where that line is drawn where we all differ.

No, I don't think this is a matter of differing over where the line is drawn. We are coming at this from completely different principles (which I will talk about more below). A society in which you can only speak out in agreement with the social consensus, where no one else is emotionally "harmed" when they hear it is not free speech.

Let me turn it around: Should a true statement become verboten because there is someone who would experience extreme emotional anguish and trauma to hear it uttered?

Taking the clear and literal sense of the words you have chosen here, then yes, absolutely. There is no excuse for knowingly causing harm to another. OK, in theory, there could be a particular set of circumstances where speaking prevented more harm than staying silent did, but that's just a distraction. The real world is messy like that. It always has been, and always will be. Usually, the best we can do is to choose the least evil option available to us.

This clearly illustrates our different value systems/paradigms and why we will never see eye to eye on this. For me, our guiding principle should not be harm minimisation, but rather freedom maximisation.

It also strikes me as deeply disturbing that you advocate the suppression of truth when it is thought to cause traumatise people to hear it. Such a society would become more and more detached from reality, more and more ensconced in it's own fantasies. It would doom itself to eventual oblivion.

Part of the problem here is that maybe we aren't looking at it the right way? My personal view is that pretty much all courteous speech should be permitted. This covers hate-speech, and a lot more besides. But everything that is covered is unimportant. The important meaning that you wish to speak out is wholly retained. Nothing is lost except for one's 'right' to insult others, maybe leading to violence or the like. Is that approach really so bad?

You cannot get away from the fact that some speech (however courteous) might also be deeply offensive (to some). It is not that I think it is important to be able to insult people, rather I realise that it is inevitable that some people will find true statements insulting. And in such situations, our differing guiding principles cause us to come to different conclusions and take a different side.

[Fried Egg]

I would put the principle of harm minimisation in the same bucket as the pursuit of equity. They are goals that sound nice but actually lead to horrific consequences for society when these ideas are followed to their logical conclusions.

Free speech is just one of the things that will be sacrificed on the road to minimising harm but certainly not the only thing. One could easily devote a thread to the subject.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't deny that free speech is a social norm, only insist that it is integral to a free and democratic society.

You are drifting away from my intended meaning(s). I don't agree with this, but that isn't the issue here. Everyone believes as they see fit, you and I included.

My point focusses-in a little more, to where the line is drawn. All countries, nations, societies, etc., place certain limits on 'freedom' of speech. It's where that line is drawn where we all differ.

No, I don't think this is a matter of differing over where the line is drawn.

For practical purposes, it is exactly that. But carry on reading:

We are coming at this from completely different principles (which I will talk about more below).

Yes, indeed we are. But it still comes down to where the line is drawn, between acceptable and unacceptable speech. Even though our principles do differ, as you observe.

A society in which you can only speak out in agreement with the social consensus, where no one else is emotionally "harmed" when they hear it is not free speech.

Hmm. One of us has badly misunderstood what courtesy is. Courtesy allows the expression of any argument, any concept, any explanation. In everyday terms, the only thing courtesy does not allow is personal insults of any sort. Admittedly, it isn't quite that simple, but it's a more-than-acceptable approximation.

Freedom of Courteous Speech allows and supports any discussion associated with democracy. It does not prevent anything except insults, so no-one is inconvenienced or silenced.