I’m not suggesting that free speech isn’t vitally important to maintain a free society. But the ugly stuff occurring isn’t just about removing free speech; it also requires the systematic installment of beliefs contrary to a free society. And honestly I don’t see that happening in our countries anymore than the ideas of (re)establishing a monarchy or a theocracy taking root. That’s not to say that these various groups gaining power can’t disrupt or cause other and possibly significant problems within society, but there’s a difference between their potential to do that and their potential to transform society into what they envision.

Actually, the two arguments blend together. Free speech is necessary to maintain a free society - I guess I should say, it allows competing ideas to battle in and for the public domain. You risk devolving into tyranny with every restriction and to the extent that you restrict free speech. This is because the extent to which we allow speech restrictions is the extent to which we are susceptible to falling down the slippery slope, which is very real. Power corrupts and seeks more power. Someone said it very well above. I think I'll quote it.


To be clear, no, it is not remotely risible that hate speech laws are a threat to democracy. They are a threat.

This:

When speech such as direct authoritarian propagation of false accusations about mass baby murder leads to people getting punished, is that free?

Or is that like the accusations of satanic preschool teacher cults from the 90s? A false narrative with binding consequences.

Is that really free speech?

yes

yes

Fifty fifty chance you are lying?
Because that’s free speech too.

But yelling fire in a stadium is punishable.
Yelling dead babies in a civilization.... panic doesn’t scale up?

No. You can yell fire in a theatre or stadium without punishment.

If what you say creates "imminent lawless action" it's possible that you could be in some deep **** but still mostly likely not. Falsely shouting "fire" even if it risks the safety of others does not break the law because "clear and present danger" isn't a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech.

In simple terms...

I am going to gut you and eat your liver with some fava beans...Possibly bad

That garbage can is going to explode and you better run...Not so bad

Speech so free that’s it’s free from being an influence doesn’t make sense. That extends beyond individual freedom of choice as the influence of one’s speech is inferable to some extent to where it’s largely beyond control.

And speech with no influence is like a “joke” that can’t be deconstructed for the elements of humor.

“All warfare is based on deception”

Is speech used to conduct warfare free speech?

Lets take a look.

From the vantage point of viewing the behavior of speaking. One presupposes whatever one says that they are free to say so because they did.

When I say hi to one of my cats, she meows- ergo Milly Bob McKay has free speech.

Behavioral indicated free speech under a free will paradigm. Sure sounds easy to say yes too. Look I said it.

Speech with an influence which is decidedly not free is at odds with the behavior of being to mouth such speech.

I could probably just post this in the LC thread, but it seemed appropriate here.

Gender stereotypes have been banned from British ads. What does that mean?

I'm curious how this will play out.

When my wife teaches Sociology 101, one of the assignments she typically has them do involves selecting some bit of advertising and doing a content analysis of it for themes related to gender stereotypes. It's always seemed like a pretty accessible way to introduce a whole bunch of topics, e.g. content analysis as a research method, but also gendered social norms/attitudes/beliefs and so on. So I think the point about advertising being both shaped by culture and also shaping culture is pretty salient.

I'm not sure how well regulation like this can function to change that dialectic though.

Just on the 'definition' bit. We don't require definitions, not least because it's usually a sizable mistake to ask for them.

Case by case judgements will be made. Precedents will be set. They will be argued over and develop over time. It wont be perfect but it's usually massively better than doing nothing because perfection requires a non-existent definition.

I'm not philosophically opposed to that approach in all circumstances. When I say I'm curious to see how it plays out I mean quite literally. I'm not sure what I think of it or how thorny I should expect those issues to be.

Could go in the brexit thread but the freedom of speech aspect is probably more interesting. I think this is very good law being well applied. Maybe some whom support the right to free speech think this is good law but not a violation of freedom of speech - i'm not quite sure where the boundaries are.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49050288

I'm not sure of the details of the law, but imo private citizens should be allowed to call elected officials "Nazis" if they want to.

This an awful law horribly applied.

Mill is rolling over in his grave.

Can we be clear that this is not a matter of someone just calling someone else a nazi. It's about pursuing someone while verbally abusing them in an offensive and intimidating manner.

Shame his dead because I would be very interested in Mill's views. I don't know which way he would come down on this but I'm sure he would be very sympathetic to the intention of the law.

It's an application of the harm principle and utilitarianism isn't it?

I'm not really sure how the bolded isn't just the prior sentence in more emotive language. If you call someone a Nazi, you better mean it in an offensive manner. Nothing illegal about pursuing someone.

Well whether it's illegal is the topic. Clearly there's a point in the UK where it is illegal.

Huge difference between doing it from a distance and doing it withing striking distance in an intrusive and persistent manner - this is not just emotive language on my part. Do we disagree on that?

Is this a like a traffic ticket? Something like disorderly conduct?

You’re joking, right?

Mill would probably defend Westboro’s speech, lol.