I'm pointing out a lacuna in your argument. I'm claiming that the argument should be of the form X iff not Y and not Z and not W. If that's correct, then claiming not Y is not enough to show X. You have to also demonstrate not Z and not W.

My confusion is if you mean: Free speech is no longer needed as a protection against tyranny because modern communication technology makes such a protection otiose. Alternatively, you might mean: Modern communication technology has eroded free speech's ability to protect against tyranny. The latter seems inconsistent with your argument for a right to access of mass media. The former seems inconsistent with your claim here.

I'm mostly a consequentialist these days, so I don't think hate speech is inherently wrong. I do still accept Y, W, and Z though.

I agree but I'm including not Z and not W within X. Y has the special place because it's a right rather than being within the consideration and powers of the elected authority.

edit: I can see the point that Y may protect against more than tyranny. So my argument is a simplification and we might need a not Y' as well. I'm guilty of skipping over some things that I never thought made any sense as a reason for rights.

Maybe like wearing a condom while infertile as a protection against pregnancy. It's a difficult issue but I'd argue it analogous to state cameras - I was against them for along time because of the fears of 'big brother' but the advent of mass recording devices along with the ease of sharing the information has effectively removed that concern. That new factor has changed my view on what we should do completely

I also accept W and Z - I just don't think they outweigh the benefits of restricting hate speech. Y might well be sufficient if it's valid.

They're different concepts, I agree, the issue is when the two may be conflated, and given the erosion of internet privacy, the risks to net neutrality, these are exactly the areas that we may see overreach. But this is all a bit silly, since nobody's going to buy into the idea that political opposition can't be suppressed as long as there's internet.

That would be silly. They might however recognise that it's not significantly (if at all) less likely with the right to free speech.

It is significantly more likely though because once a government has opened the door for censoring certain forms of speech it then allows future governments to overreach in those powers. This is why nations have constitutional arrangements on such matters.

It's more likely they will use them in ways we (or some group) disagree with and they could quite likely be bad laws. If you think it's significantly more likely that it will result in a one party state then we disagree - but at least we are having the right disagreement now.

Chez, do you consider this quote (from the Trump thread) to be hate speech?

Chez, I know you're getting hit with a lot of questions and rebuttals right now, but I'd like to comment that this is an example of what I've been prattling on about for some time on how PC lead to Brexit and Trump.

Millions of people believe that the refugee crisis has lead to their communities suffering in the way Sosa describes above, and that is on top of the increased risk of terrorism. I know you strongly disagree with them, and so do I for the most part. But telling them what they're saying is not PC, and it's not a statement they should be allowed to discuss (approaching hate speech?), only drives many of these people into the arms of the far right, who are glad to discuss such fears with them. Is this not obvious?

I accept there is some downside risk to PC but we're banning discussion of the issues or being hateful towards people so the downside is minimal compared to 'calling them names' type approach. If you're right about trump its far more about the hateful and dismissive attitude towards a large group of people.

You have to consider that against the upside of PC. Most people have biased beliefs and attitudes directed at vulnerable groups because they hear negative stereotypes, derogatory comments etc etc. PC has done a great job at addressing that and there's much more to be done.

So you don't think that your fear of hurting vulnerable groups contributed to mistrust in government and the "elites", take for example the Rotherham rape scandal, and this mistrust eventually lead to so many people trusting kooks like Farage and Johnson more than upstanding PC gentlemen like yourself?

I'm willing to accept it has some downside although I don't think it was a big factor in those examples.

Where we seem to constantly butt heads is that you seem to think pointing out a downside of something implies we shouldn't do it. That has it's counterpart in some who wont admit downsides if they think something is worth doing.

I think we should be pragmatic about these things. Maybe I'm being too utilitarian, but if being too overly PC eventually leads to such outcomes as your country leaving the EU and Trump destroying the rest of the western world as we know it, I'm going to continue leaning toward reigning that in.

I'm accused of the pundit's fallacy in the PC thread for this hypothesis, and perhaps that's true. I certainly do have all sorts of other problems with abuse of PC, like it's tendency to subjugate truth to fantasy and humor to sticks in butts.

First some general comments:

A key component of your premise is that limiting hate speech will be a proactive measure to the establishment of one-party systems in democratic states, because of the advent of fast and immediate mass communication amongst the masses. A dubious claim, but I’ll let OriP parse out the particulars, which you are engaged in already, and I think he is more qualified than I to do so. But anyway that in itself seems more of an excuse, and bias, and self-fulfilling justification for suppression of speech by means of censorship by government fiat. This seems to me a particular dangerous precedent. It is in some sense the reverse of what the US Constitution and its amendments were established for, the guarantee of inherent checks and balances in branches of government and the inherent rights and liberties of individuals, as a further check on the insidious inroads of control and abuse of power that history has shown that all governments engage in.

As to the quoted above:

Of equal doubt to me is the promulgation of specific laws that are clear censorship of written (and spoken?) speech (I assume this would include all means of mass media, e.g. Films, TV shows) in regard to race, religion and sexual orientation as you explained that Britain now has. It even has the odious whiff of blasphemy laws both ancient and modern. Is it justified for Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses to be censored/banned in the UK?

Further it is dubious and dangerous, IMO, that apparently, certain “venerable groups” need this sort of protection. What groups, and who determines that they are venerable and by use of what metric, and venerable to what? Just hate? Again, will the government by fiat have a list of venerable groups that the hate speech laws are then applied to? Can groups then lobby the government to get on the venerable groups list for protection? This in itself can lend to abuse of power. There can be a tyranny of the minority; just as there is a tyranny of the majority.

I find much to object to in not only your premise(s) but also in your conclusion as to a remedy. And others have also raised some serious questions and doubts.

Not sure what that,means but it sounds like a misunderstanding. The reason for limitations on hate speech is purely because hate speech is considered a bad thing that should be restricted.

Democratically accountable parliament decide. They make mistakes, they make laws that one side or the other opposes (often very strongly). This is the political battle we should welcome rather than shy away from.

The alternative is rule by a piece of paper that cannot be changed even after many centuries. Millennia? Then what? - appoint judges who will (re)interpret it the way the elected politicians want? Maybe that works well also although I suspect the idea this prevents abuse of power is an illusion that many are beginning to see through.

A degree of pragmatism is essential but even if abuse of PC leads to some bad outcome that's not sufficient reason to abandon good PC.

You don't seem to recognise the upside of PC which makes it very easy to argue that it should be abandoned because it's sometimes abused. It's not surprisingly we end up with different views on being PC because a) I think you're exaggerating the impact of the abuse of PC and b) I think the upside of PC has been very significant.

I see that you swerve away from dealing with particulars. And we may have misunderstandings about some of what we are debating about. But I also see that we have a fundamental difference on government actions and oversite and distribution of power and social meddling and the importance of fundamental freedoms. This is to be expected and I doubt we will agree on these fundamental issues. That’s fine. Your concerns and justifications are noted for all to see. Glad I could help you clarify them. Keep fighting the good fight as you see fit to do.

But I also sense that you, like many others, seem to have some visceral reaction to some current trends in the world and thus flail about, IMO, seeking any and all remedies or solutions to perceived problems in society at large that need some immediate fix. Understandable for those easily excited but a more measured response is dictated IMO; reactionary impulses tend to exacerbate problems instead of mitigating them.

As to the bolded in the quote above - I see that you need a bit of education to enlighten yourself to the American Way (I sense that you still think America is a colony of the old empire and needs to be set straight by their betters), see the link to Article V of the US constitution Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution and Calling a Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States This provides for amendments to be made and ratified and for the call of a constitutional convention to add amendments or otherwise alter the constitution. The Bill of Rights, which included 12 amendments (10 were ratified) were all added together, so large fundamental changes to the constitution is possible, aside from calling a second convention, this also means that previous amendments can be repealed or altered (I mentioned this in another thread) as time and circumstances and political necessity dictate. The supposed rigidity that you imply simply does not exist. In 100 years, or less, AI Robots in the US will be able to vote and hold office - Thus making America kings of the planet. The UK will be even more of a backwater nation by then. That’s the way of the world. Get used to it.

Seems like we can clear up part of our disagreement then, since I'm not proposing we abandon PC. You know I think PC is fine as long as it's not abused. So we just disagree on how much it has been abused and how that abuse has slowly driven the world batty.

It's just great to incentivize acting all butthurt over everything to suppress speech you disagree with. It's also just great to reward actually being all butthurt over everything by suppressing speech. And we have a recent high-profile example in Geert Wilders (re Moroccans) that the application of this standard is already bat**** insane in a Western country.

There's no doubt we don't agree. Nothing wrong with that. I'm rather inclined to the political view that agreement is a bigger problem than disagreement.

That's a hard description for me to recognise. I am shook up by brexit and trump but that's incredibly rare for me. My political views on things like freedom of speech predate that and have been very slowly formed over 30 years or so.

The bolded bit is just me having some fun with you lot, it's all just people to me. If I had my way the UK would be historical in 100 years (20 would be even better).

The subject of a written constitution was the issue I was just getting ready to have a good solid fight with Bruce about. Maybe it shouldn't be slipping in here but it's bound up with this notion of fundamental rights.

I think we have less 'butthurt' because of it. I detect far more in countries like the USA where doing anything about it seems to be unthinkable.

Sure it's going to result in some bad examples and they get the publicity. The good thing is that when we think the rules are bad we have a real path to getting them changed. The UK rules for example were quickly amended to remove 'insulting' from one section after a campaign led by Rowen Atkinson.

There's a difference between a one party state and a tyranny, is that what you want to argue about?

A government can't use powers it doesn't have. That's the purpose of constitutional checks and balances, to lower the risk of governments gaining a certain level of control or imposing certain restrictions on the people.

It stands to reason that eroding those checks and balances increases the risk of abuse. After all, that's why they're there.

Not sure what this means but I assume neither of us want to talk about it.

Only if the checks and balance make a difference in respect of what we're discussing which is not mere abuse.

We can call anything checks and balances but it doesn't mean they will help. Some may think the 2nd amendment protects them from the government becoming a one party state - does it really?

It means that tyranny is semantically different to totalitarianism or dictatorship.

So would you agree with someone who claimed the right to bear arms is an effective check and balance against government tyranny?

How is flagburning not incendiary speech that could reasonably result in a fist fight, ala fighting words?

I'm not saying that some government might not enact such a rule - maybe even in the USA despite having the right to free speech. I'd oppose it for various reasons.

It's not comparable to if someone shouts "<offensive term for a group> go home" to non-white British people