Freedom of speech and freedom of consequences

[fast]

Same with 'free speech". It's s a way of justifying something (hate propoganda) that is harmful to society as a whole, and actually has the reverse effect (like lax gun control) by limiting the freedoms of its targets.

I want a society where people are free to express themselves, but does it need to br at the expense of others? Particularly when the "others" pose no threat, risk, or inconvenience to those doing the "free (hate) speaking"?

Where is the line drawn?

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Chomsky,*

Say what you will. Yes. And do what you will, too. What will you do? How far will you go? If I trample on your toes, what can I expect? If you think my views are vile, I understand that you may tell me so. Also, I understand you're gonna do things to see that I suffer, but for trampling on your toes, how much suffering should there be? Oh, just my livelihood?

*yes, I know it's a quote

 

[fromderinside]

That quote is pure theater. One can believe, grant, freedom of speech and one can believe, acknowledge, consequences thereof. The two can exist simultaneously in the same individual. Holing one does not negate the other.

 

[Malintent]

I don't see how opposing a person's views is an opposition to their freedom to express their views. Say what you want, and reap the consequences.... which may be a punch to the face or a pat on the back.. either way, no one is saying you can't speak, just that you can't be exempt from response to your statements. fucking obviously.

 

[Bomb#20]

That quote is pure theater. One can believe, grant, freedom of speech and one can believe, acknowledge, consequences thereof. The two can exist simultaneously in the same individual. Holing one does not negate the other.

It's not theater; it's reality. If you believe others should be free to say what you want, rather than free to say what they want, that's not believing in free speech. We just have to keep in mind what sort of consequences it is we're talking about speech being free from. "Free speech" doesn't mean free from other people's negative opinions and it doesn't mean free from other people using their own freedom in response to what you say -- freedom cuts both ways. "Free speech" just means free from violence and government coercion.

JG apparently wants a society where people are free to express themselves, but not at the expense of others, particularly when the "others" pose no threat, risk, or inconvenience to those doing the "free (hate) speaking". So let's take a typical example of hate speech. Bernie expresses himself by saying there should be a maximum wage. That's at the expense of some rich guy Bernie wants to injure financially even though the guy poses no threat, risk, or inconvenience to Bernie. Bernie's hate propaganda harms society as a whole and limits the freedom of its targets, just like saying Jews shouldn't get to control media companies.

So is "free speech" justification for Bernie getting to say that? Does "free speech" mean there should be no consequences to his saying that? Not at all. It means if people react by pointing out that Bernie is a spiteful bigot who shouldn't be elected dogcatcher, let alone President, and choose not to vote for him, that's fine; but if people react by punching him in the nose, or by having their police put him in jail for the crime of saying something every reasonable person finds despicable, that's not okay.

That's where the line is drawn. This is not rocket science.

 

[fromderinside]

That quote is pure theater. One can believe, grant, freedom of speech and one can believe, acknowledge, consequences thereof. The two can exist simultaneously in the same individual. Holing one does not negate the other.

So is "free speech" justification for Bernie getting to say that? Does "free speech" mean there should be no consequences to his saying that? Not at all. It means if people react by pointing out that Bernie is a spiteful bigot who shouldn't be elected dogcatcher, let alone President, and choose not to vote for him, that's fine; but if people react by punching him in the nose, or by having their police put him in jail for the crime of saying something every reasonable person finds despicable, that's not okay.

That's where the line is drawn. This is not rocket science.

Does Bernie say there are no consequences for him saying that? No he doesn't. Nor does he tell those who believe what he says it gospel to become an army of vengeance.

They are two separate things. The line is in behavior, it is not in speech. One can hold a view for free speech and one can admit there may be consequences for such speech. One may act on free speech and trhe law may prohibit such action.

This is about Chomsky tying two more or less independent notions into a cause effect necessity. Ain't true.

The effect of speech is opposing speech and agreeing speech. Behavior depends on one's tendency to react to words and such as law. IMHO we should make laws for physical behavior and we should leave speech alone.

It's one thing to risk being stoned because you practice hate speech behind a microphone it is quite another that you write such speech on another's property. In the former it should be the ones throwing stones who are arrested while in the second it the one who writes hate on another's property that should be sanctioned.

 

[fast]

I don't see how opposing a person's views is an opposition to their freedom to express their views.

The Devil is in the details. It depends on the form of the opposition. If I say "kitty's rule," you might disagree and respond with "Fast, you're wrong." Or, if you're terribly upset, you might call me names and write every newspaper and television station in the land, but the opposition at either extreme is localized to freedom of expression. Through language, we are saying whatever our hearts desire. Fine.

But, if the form of your opposition transcends language and enters the realm of physical action beyond that of the speech act, then I dare say that where you tread might make a difference as to whether or not you're deterring freedom.

Yes, if Brutus calls my girl a cunt, there's going to be consequences beyond my saying "big meanie." It might involve my dropping the son of a bitch right where the fuck he stands. There won't be any of this intellectual bullshit. I'll break him from sucking eggs real quick. And, if things get real nasty, I might put today's date on his grave. Let him reap what the fuck he sowed, and may the alligators eat well. People who want to talk about right and wrong and how lack of civility is corrupting this ole world might just find their dead grandmothers bones dug up and nailed to their damn front porch. Let them speak their mind if they want to! Sociopath? I can show Brutus better than I can tell him. Do you see where I'm going with this?

So what if our precious amendment is upheld by law? Like you say, we have other ways to shut their mouths. Punch to the face. Punch to the face. Punch to the face. Punch to the face. Hell, I'm good with that. I was never once opposed to such emotionally driven small time acts of violence. I am against the more extreme things we can do whether it be like some of the stuff I just said for illustrative purposes or like I said in the OP about destroying their financial lives.

 

[bilby]

I also wonder what are the limits of punishment for abhorrent speech?

Should a grocery store, car dealership, airline or a landlord be able to refuse the money of Richard Spencer? What about a hospital?

Any entity within the realm of the "free market" should be free to conduct business as they see fit, within existing regulations, and not be exempt from public discourse that may help or hinder profits.. the breadth of the "public discourse", in my opinion, is far too broad with social media spreading local issues thickly across the nation.

Hospitals, in my opinion, are not part of the "free market", but are a part of basic infrastructure that access to which should be a guaranteed right for all.

There is no existing free market; only a regulated market (as you recognize).

There is no particular reason to think that today's regulations are the best possible set of regulations; nor even to think that such a thing as a 'best possible set' of regulations could exist - to continue to provide the optimum outcome (however we might define 'optimum'), it is likely that regulations will need to be changed over time to respond to changing circumstances.

A 'free market' has never existed, and probably never could, on any significant scale. There are always imbalances in information, power, and urgency between vendor and customer, and regulations are always going to be needed to prevent these imbalances from having highly negative impacts on the general welfare.

When one sub-set of moral principles (eg those enshrined in the US Bill of Rights and/or Constitution) is given priority over all other considerations, the result is likely to be sub-optimal; When no moral principles at all are considered in the drafting of regulations, the result is even more likely to be sub-optimal. Elevating 'freedom of speech' above all other freedoms may or may not be a good thing; Elevating 'freedom of speech' above certain other freedoms may or may not be a good thing. What seemed like a good idea to some very smart people in 1789 could quite reasonably be a less good idea in 2017 - particularly as there are today many things regarded as 'speech' that didn't even exist in the late 18th Century.

The real problem with public discourse in the modern world is that it is founded in abject ignorance. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were not written by 'the people', based on whatever was trending on social media at the time; They were written by an elite group of well educated thinkers. That's why they have been so enduring, and remain at least mostly relevant even after 228 years, a civil war, two world wars, and the industrial and technological revolutions. If we are to make a less than half-arsed job of modifying this set of rules to fit into today's realities, then the only way to do so with any likelihood of success is to have an elite group of well educated thinkers do the job. Where such thinkers are to be found I do not know; They certainly don't appear to be numerous in the political or business arenas in today's USA.

Certainly I agree with you that what passes for public discourse today is completely valueless in assessing what changes are needed to maintain the constitution as fit for purpose in the twenty-first century.

 

[bilby]

People are entitled to their own opinions; But they are NOT entitled to their own facts.

People who make claims that are demonstrably untrue should not be given equal opportunity to promote their claims with people who make claims that are supported by reality.

The problem we face, as a society, it that the historically very powerful religious lobby has a vested interest in blocking any attempt to reduce the access that nonsense, untruths, and lies have to the public domain. As a result, we get hung up on protecting beliefs, when what we need to protect is truths.

People have even been persuaded to the belief that it is not possible to determine what is the truth - but increasingly, and for a surprisingly wide range of topics, this is simply not true.

If what you believe is demonstrably incorrect, then it's not an opinion that you have the right to express; it is an error you have a need to correct. What we need is to get away from the modern media paradigm, where both sides get equal coverage on any given topic; and move instead to a paradigm where time allowed is weighted by the scientific evidence that supports the claim.

We need to stop giving a shit (in public) about people's opinions on questions of fact. You either agree with the evidence, or you are wrong. If you disagree, then take it to academia, not CNN. If you can't learn enough about the subject to challenge the experts on their own turf, by doing valuable and effective original research in the relevant fields, then you need to STFU. The Earth is not flat; 2+2 is not 5; Vaccination is not causing autism; and your opinion that it is is less than worthless.

 

[Kharakov]

The Devil is in the details.

I had to kill the first monkey that said that.

 

[JohnG]

People are entitled to their own opinions; But they are NOT entitled to their own facts.

People who make claims that are demonstrably untrue should not be given equal opportunity to promote their claims with people who make claims that are supported by reality.

The problem we face, as a society, it that the historically very powerful religious lobby has a vested interest in blocking any attempt to reduce the access that nonsense, untruths, and lies have to the public domain. As a result, we get hung up on protecting beliefs, when what we need to protect is truths.

People have even been persuaded to the belief that it is not possible to determine what is the truth - but increasingly, and for a surprisingly wide range of topics, this is simply not true.

If what you believe is demonstrably incorrect, then it's not an opinion that you have the right to express; it is an error you have a need to correct. What we need is to get away from the modern media paradigm, where both sides get equal coverage on any given topic; and move instead to a paradigm where time allowed is weighted by the scientific evidence that supports the claim.

We need to stop giving a shit (in public) about people's opinions on questions of fact. You either agree with the evidence, or you are wrong. If you disagree, then take it to academia, not CNN. If you can't learn enough about the subject to challenge the experts on their own turf, by doing valuable and effective original research in the relevant fields, then you need to STFU. The Earth is not flat; 2+2 is not 5; Vaccination is not causing autism; and your opinion that it is is less than worthless.

This is helpful. Good points. However It's tough to envision this ideal in a world of subjective truths (unfortunately). I agree that truths should be based on peer reviewed data, but we live in a world of "fantasy" narratives and motivated reasoning. It seems like the people who are prone to such thinking are those that are most "free" with their speech.

Maybe the answer is the long hard road: Education.

 

[bilby]

People are entitled to their own opinions; But they are NOT entitled to their own facts.

People who make claims that are demonstrably untrue should not be given equal opportunity to promote their claims with people who make claims that are supported by reality.

The problem we face, as a society, it that the historically very powerful religious lobby has a vested interest in blocking any attempt to reduce the access that nonsense, untruths, and lies have to the public domain. As a result, we get hung up on protecting beliefs, when what we need to protect is truths.

People have even been persuaded to the belief that it is not possible to determine what is the truth - but increasingly, and for a surprisingly wide range of topics, this is simply not true.

If what you believe is demonstrably incorrect, then it's not an opinion that you have the right to express; it is an error you have a need to correct. What we need is to get away from the modern media paradigm, where both sides get equal coverage on any given topic; and move instead to a paradigm where time allowed is weighted by the scientific evidence that supports the claim.

We need to stop giving a shit (in public) about people's opinions on questions of fact. You either agree with the evidence, or you are wrong. If you disagree, then take it to academia, not CNN. If you can't learn enough about the subject to challenge the experts on their own turf, by doing valuable and effective original research in the relevant fields, then you need to STFU. The Earth is not flat; 2+2 is not 5; Vaccination is not causing autism; and your opinion that it is is less than worthless.

This is helpful. Good points. However It's tough to envision this ideal in a world of subjective truths (unfortunately). I agree that truths should be based on peer reviewed data, but we live in a world of "fantasy" narratives and motivated reasoning. It seems like the people who are prone to such thinking are those that are most "free" with their speech.

Maybe the answer is the long hard road: Education.

Absolutely. But education remains in thrall to religious interests (even in many of the most secular OECD nations), and so concentrates on vocational training, and largely avoids teaching students how to think.

It remains the only solution; but it will be a LONG time before we are able, as a society, to start widespread education of children in critical and logical reasoning skills. Much better to teach them how to be good and valuable workers, who don't ask difficult questions, and most certainly don't question their religious indoctrination.

 

[fromderinside]

Sounds like you are reflecting what is rather than anything better than that. Of course better than that is a question much in need of being made more objective. Currently, your last sentence, obedience and control are all about governing, not very much about educating.

The marketplace of ideas is not, should not be, realized in a market place of competing school formats which only adds profit motive to citizen control** in school format design.

Attributes for acquiring knowledge and for developing reasoned judgement should be at the core of education with as little government and commerce bias as is possible in a state regulated and citizen funded enterprise. I suggest models such as those employed by  Reed college . If one wants to see how low Reed ranks in government and business focus one need only pay attention to Brookings institute's rating of incremental impact on alumni earnings.*

^{*_{Reed College ranked in the bottom 6% of four year colleges nationwide in the Brookings Institute's rating of U.S. colleges by incremental impact on alumni earnings 10 years post-enrollment}}

^{_{** government,religion, parent}}

 

[bilby]

Sounds like you are reflecting what is rather than anything better than that. Of course better than that is a question much in need of being made more objective. Currently, your last sentence, obedience and control are all about governing, not very much about educating.

The marketplace of ideas is not, should not be, realized in a market place of competing school formats which only adds profit motive to citizen control** in school format design.

Attributes for acquiring knowledge and for developing reasoned judgement should be at the core of education with as little government and commerce bias as is possible in a state regulated and citizen funded enterprise. I suggest models such as those employed by  Reed college . If one wants to see how low Reed ranks in government and business focus one need only pay attention to Brookings institute's rating of incremental impact on alumni earnings.*

^{*_{Reed College ranked in the bottom 6% of four year colleges nationwide in the Brookings Institute's rating of U.S. colleges by incremental impact on alumni earnings 10 years post-enrollment}}

^{_{** government,religion, parent}}

College is FAR too late.

I am talking about teaching kids how to think as part of early primary education, along with the other basic skills like reading and writing.

 

[untermensche]

Same with 'free speech". It's s a way of justifying something (hate propoganda) that is harmful to society as a whole, and actually has the reverse effect (like lax gun control) by limiting the freedoms of its targets.

I want a society where people are free to express themselves, but does it need to br at the expense of others? Particularly when the "others" pose no threat, risk, or inconvenience to those doing the "free (hate) speaking"?

Where is the line drawn?

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Chomsky is always right.

He is hard to live up to though.

If you want an opinion from the true "left" he is where you look.

 

[fromderinside]

Sounds like you are reflecting what is rather than anything better than that. Of course better than that is a question much in need of being made more objective. Currently, your last sentence, obedience and control are all about governing, not very much about educating.

The marketplace of ideas is not, should not be, realized in a market place of competing school formats which only adds profit motive to citizen control** in school format design.

Attributes for acquiring knowledge and for developing reasoned judgement should be at the core of education with as little government and commerce bias as is possible in a state regulated and citizen funded enterprise. I suggest models such as those employed by  Reed college . If one wants to see how low Reed ranks in government and business focus one need only pay attention to Brookings institute's rating of incremental impact on alumni earnings.*



^{_{** government,religion, parent}}

College is FAR too late.

I am talking about teaching kids how to think as part of early primary education, along with the other basic skills like reading and writing.

I agree. The Reed model works for all education from one's acquiring substance, place, ownership, etc., to achieving position, authority, and autonomy in the adult marketplace.

 

[fromderinside]

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Chomsky is always right.

He is hard to live up to though.

If you want an opinion from the true "left" he is where you look.

What's so remarkable about Chomsky essentially parroting Plato recognizing we are tribal with the larger understanding we all are of the same species. All I said was Chomsky missed the point. Humans can hold a viewpoint and refuse that attribute for others without having to be hypocrites. A viewpoint is a way-station away from core values. You have a shorter beak so you aren't entitled to my pomegranate seeds.

 

[bilby]

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Chomsky is always right.

He is hard to live up to though.

If you want an opinion from the true "left" he is where you look.

Nobody is always right.

And you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unqualified to determine who is or is not right on any given topic.

 

[Philos]

Speech is a form of conduct.

I do not wish any restraints on my conduct.

I want to harm others at will.

And those that oppose my desire to harm others are tyrants.

u,

That is a fair point, Donald.

A.

 

[fromderinside]

...or if wishes were horses beggars might ride.

FDI