Potentially, but I don't want to conflate guns with speech.

There's no conflation. It's an analogy to demonstrate the point that just because something purports to be a check and balance, it doesn't mean that it makes any significant difference. Not even if it did in the past.

It also probably makes the form of my argument clearer because we're on more common ground. I oppose the right to bear arms iff that right isn't a significant safe guard against tyranny.

Parliament did make a notable mistake by including 'ridicule' under the head of incitement to religious hatred. This was the Labour government of the day trying to appease its Muslim voters, apparently. It caused an instant stink of the first magnitude, particularly because of the Rushdie Affair (which had established as a matter of policy that the British government will support the ridicule of religion on the grounds of free speech), and it was swiftly taken off the books.

The recent trial of a Belfast Protestant fire-and-brimstone hate preacher who called Muslims the spawn of the devil, and was acquitted, established in case law that you have to do something rather worse than that to be convicted: you have to actively incite hatred and to pose a danger to public safety comparable to shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre where there is no fire, the classic exception to the free-speech rule.

The much-vaunted US Constitution, a primitive and clunking first guess at how a modern democratic republic should be run, has become a bit of a bad joke lately.

And when white Murrcans prate about free speech, they simply mean it's unjust that they can't yell '******!' at black people and stab them in the chest or empty a clip of 9mm into them or string them up simply for walking on the street, or looking at a white woman, or attempting to vote. That's all. Never underestimate the racial paranoia of white Murrcans, or the plantation mentality that they are still deeply wedded to.

This is my understanding of your view:

1) X iff ~Y

X = We should legally restrict hate speech
Y = Legal restrictions on hate speech increase the chance of tyranny

I'm pointing out that there are many potential reasons to oppose X beyond Y and so your claim as constructed here is incomplete (also I think you want the conditional, not the biconditional here. In fact, I'm pretty sure this isn't the correct argument form since you are weighing the relative benefits and costs to this legislation.).

For instance, I assume that banning hate speech causes harm to the person who wants to use it, but that is nowhere in your claim. There are other potential reasons to oppose hate speech legislation, such as the concern that such restrictions make for worse policy or lower political involvement or increase incentives for civil disobedience or increase hate speech, etc.

Tell me if something like this is your argument.

1) Political speech by citizens helps prevent governments from acting tyrannically.
2) State censorship on citizen political speech is no longer effective in impeding this speech because of social media and online communication.
3) Thus, legislation blocking citizen political speech doesn't makes it easier for governments to act tyrannically.
4) Hate speech is a form of citizen political speech.
5) Therefore, censorship of hate speech doesn't make it easier for governments to act tyrannically.
6) Hate speech on balance has negative consequences for society.
7) We should ban things that on balance have negative consequences for society.
8) Therefore, we should ban hate speech.

Of course there's more in the US- the tactic is used outside the color of law on a far wider range than "hate speech" with the direct intent to stifle disagreeable speech. We're way ahead of the curve, and the endgame just sucks. Why anybody would want to walk down this path voluntarily, I have no idea.

Not quite
Y = The right to free speech significantly reduces the chance of tyranny

X incorporates all the other pros and cons of restricting hate speech. So it takes into account the harm that would be done to people who want to use any banned speech


1) -5) It's something like it but I think we have to understand the distinction I made to Blades that the laws against hate speech act on an individual whereas the political speech that protects us from tyranny is cooperative communication between many people.

6) and 8) yes (that's the X).
Not 7) in general (well it's messy) but it applies here.

There's also a bit more which is that restrictions on free speech should be allowed even though at various times the implementation may have -ve consequences.

Generally having recourse to a justice system is the more civilised approach. It also provides the correct place to focus political efforts to change things.

I don't think you're ahead of the curve except that it's quite possible we will follow you down a wrong turning. A great deal more thought needs to go into the interplay between democratic accountability and rights.

The merits of free speech and bearing arms are not the same. I see the analogy you wish to draw, but I don't agree with it.

This doesn't really make sense to me. Are you putting this into propositional logic? If so, then X needs to be a proposition like Y. What is this proposition?

Also, in attacking Y, do you mean to attack the ability of rights in a written constitution to prevent tyranny in general? Or is this specific to the free speech guarantee?
Okay good. So I don't see the argument for (2). State censorship of terms or ideas on social media or banning of some websites still helps authoritarian and tyrannical governments hold onto power. You've acknowledged this, so I'm missing something here. Should I go into more detail? Or describe how I think hate speech laws can have this effect?

I'd argue that (7) doesn't apply here for public choice reasons.

Indeed the merits are different in each case so it's perfectly reasonable to reach different conclusions in each case, or even in the same case if other factors change.

The analogy demonstrates that we cant simply conclude that something that purports to be a check and balance will actually provides any significant protection.

X = taking everything into account other than Y we should allow government to make laws on restricting hate speech

Here, it's specific to the right to free speech. I think people way over estimate how much rights protect them from tyranny but I'm not claiming they can't help at all.

I agree it helps tyrannical governments hold onto power but if it doesn't significantly help prevent the tyrannical government taking control then how does it help? The tyrannical government will ignore the right or abolish it anyway.


That's fair enough. I disagree. I wouldn't go along with torture on the basis of good consequences but I'm fine with laws against shouting '**** go home' at a non-white or polish family in a way intended to (or likely to) whip up hatred against them - I'm not fine with it being allowed.

The multiple gyrations of your argumentation would put the best logician gymnast to the test, Chez. Your pretzel like logical contortions do not set well, with me at least.

How about just being boldly honest and state:

At particular times in society some freedoms of speech must be curtailed to protect certain venerable groups of people from abuse; verbal or written or by other means of mass media.

The particular times and venerable groups to be determined by appropriate legislation.

_______________

The particulars of your convoluted justifications would then be debated/discussed and augured for and against during the legislative phase of implementing your draconian dream.


You can then start your animal farm.

I do boldly state that. I also point out that I wouldn't believe this if I thought the right to free speech provided a significant protection against tyranny.

My attempt to distinguish between rights and what should be decided by government seems to to have caused much confusion. It's very important to the topic though.

What you call pretzel logic, I like to think of as default logic. It's a really nice approach to thinking.

First bolded above: Yes, it caused some confusion. It is more clear now.

Second bolded above: I think iterative logic would be a better term than default logic. It has a more positive spin, aside from, I think, being a better descriptive term.

The tyranny part needs clarity and added firmness in evidence. And some historical backing.

I was trying to keep it simple by just saying "default logic' instead of the vastly more pompous 'Default Logic and non-monotonic reasoning'

I'm not sure whether iterative logic refers to the same thing - it's not a description I'm familiar with. It does sound like it might describe the same thing.

logic-nonmonotonic/

The word iterative is used in the above article. Logicians have formalized all names and terms, being anal bastards of the first-order. I like my off-the-cuff term as it does describe some of the process and concepts. But iteration logic would just be hooey for the academic hooligans that are the gatekeepers of descriptors, terms, categories and all else in their logic tool box. I used to use the term "working hypothesis ' all the time in grad school. It mollified the more obtuse professors with their too quick critiques and criticisms. I was able to eased out the backdoor with a fine diploma and upstanding marks. He who laughs last, laughs best.

This would have tons of application in poker, like in spots where you tentatively put someone on a very strong hand that's repped where you still can't exclude bluffs.

If government is a mandated insurance policy on the people to stop bad things from happening, what insurance do we have against the government aside from elections, which can fail? Basically free speech, guns, and other protections in the Bill of Rights, which are also vulnerable. 10th Amendment is hate speech these days.

The defense against tyranny comes at least partially from the institutions and values of civil society. In order for that defense to work, these institutions have to have real power or they won't be able to resist the power and influence of government. By passing laws banning hate speech, the government weakens the power of civil society to regulate acceptable speech in the private sphere. This makes the institutions of civil society less powerful and thus less able to stand up to government power. This means that if a future government attempts to pass laws regulating speech in a tyrannical way, civil society is less likely to effectively resist this power grab.

Robert Frost once said, “A liberal is someone who can't take his own side in an argument.” Amusing, but this does encapsulate a core idea of liberal thought. In democratic societies you cannot be assured of always holding on to power. Thus, when examining a policy, you have to also look at the area of civil life being brought under the power of government and decide whether you are willing to let your political opponents have power over that area of life as well. So when I look at hate speech laws, I don't just see a law against shouting slurs at immigrants. I see a law that allows my opponents to pass lese majeste laws or laws against rudely criticizing Christians. That's not very appealing.

Yes but those institutions and values don't rely on the blanket right - the reverse is more the case. I'd dispute, for example, any claim that there's more chance of the UK becoming a tyranny than the USA (I might well argue that there's less)


Indeed and one thing that informs all my political views is that we wont always win - I've mentioned it explicitly in this thread. We had blasphemy laws in the UK until 2008 - totally ridiculous but not a reason to avoid arguing for good speech laws.

That's not the right comparison. Rather, it would be whether the UK is more likely to become tyrannical after it passed the law banning hate speech. The US and UK have too many other differences for the comparison between the two of them on a single metric to tell us much.

Second, it isn't a matter of right but of power. Before passing laws banning speech codes, there were still social norms that stopped people from using slurs and being rude. These norms are set largely by the institutions of civil society: universities, churches, unions, schools, media, and so on. This is a significant part of the power of civil society in resisting dictatorship. Because these institutions have this influence on people's speech norms, it can affect how people think about the actions of the government in affecting those speech norms.

Thus, when a government takes over the enforcement of some speech codes, it is taking away some of the power that comes from influencing these social norms. This loss of power weakens the ability to civil society to stand up to a tyrannical government.

This also is the answer to another concern you seem to have. What stops a tyrannical government from just overturning bans on censorship? The answer is civil society. A society where churches, business, universities, and other non-political institutions are able to resist the government is one where the government will find it difficult to rule tyrannically.

Yes it is? Is that not explicitly my argument? Instead of trading power over speech back and forth with our political opponents, it is best to let this power diffuse back to civil society to be managed by private organizations and citizens.

Given out system always allowed parliament to restrict hate speech, the introduction of the restrictions didn't change anything much in regard to the chances of the UK becoming atyranny

Absolutely. Rights in this regard are generally over valued. When it's political organisation we're talking about, the power required to suppress any popular movement is so vast that the right itself isn't worth a hill of beans.

This is now an argument about democracy which is key to the whole debate. It's society that enforces it's will on government - rights can weaken that power as there's no effective democratic accountability. It's great when the rights are good and wise, and bad when they aren't.

It's not been a concern in this thread but I agree. What doesn't stop them is rights, not least because in a tyranny the rights are going to be changed to be in favour of government power.

Sorry yes you are quite right. What I mean is I don't think it's a good argument for giving up on making laws within a democratic process. Civil society and social norms are hugely important but it doesn't resolve the problem of some people being, say, hateful to minorities anymore than it resolves the problem of some people driving dangerously.

It's very simple I guess. The government does protect people, despite the Bill of Rights. ???

I think you're missing the force of my argument. I'm assuming that speech is regulated one way or the other when humans live together. Because how and what people say affects how society is governed, regulating speech grants power to those doing the regulating. Thus, it is not just the right of free speech as a legal block on the authority of government that prevents governments from being tyrannical. It is also the fact that in free speech societies this power is still present, but more of it is held by private institutions. The increased power that these private institutions hold allows them to be more effective in resisting attempts by the government to act tyrannically.

Thus, if my argument is correct, the introduction of hate speech legislation did make it more likely that the UK government would act tyrannically by weakening the influence of civil institutions that would otherwise be needed to govern how people talk to each other. These civil institutions would thus be somewhat less likely to be able to resist the government in the future.

Yes, it is true that trying to suppress popular movements is difficult. This is why so much of the focus of censorship is to prevent these popular movements from arising in the first place, where it can be effective.

I think this is probably correct. My own commitment to liberalism and rule of law are lexically prior to my commitment to democracy. I think one of the role of rights is to put limits on the ability of the majority to legislate over the minority in core areas of private life, such as religion and speech. I recognize this as a limitation on democracy, though a good one in my view.

This isn't absolute though. Even in the US the First Amendment isn't sacrosanct, but can be amended through a democratic process. So I wouldn't say that there is no effective democratic accountability on these rights, just that the amount of consensus or political will required to restrict speech is greater than a simple majority.

Sure it does. If you are use racial slurs at your job, there is a good chance you'll be fired. Polite society and social media will ostracize people who openly use racial slurs. Religions preach against cursing. Schools teach children certain words are rude. It's true that these things don't prevent everyone from openly using racial slurs, but then neither do laws.

Chez, or is there anyone else in here arguing to ban hate speech? Do any of you disagree that in practice, hate speech is never only defined in the reasonable way you wish?