ronburgundy
Contributor
So, a philosophy prof in the UK has published an essayhttps://aeon.co/essays/how-pornography-works-to-undermine-womens-freedom-of-speech?fbclid=IwAR02VVuAO2fzWGfCEqRChOExr1m-MbwcOk5DR5go0pi9ABVhxDEiXHvNV84 that asserts that pornography in undermining women's free speech.
The argument starts off reasonable enough, by pointing out that just b/c we utter some words doesn't mean anyone heard and understood our intended meaning. Also that some cooperation by the listener is required for understanding to occur, and thus required for the central purpose of speech acts (to communicate an intended meaning) to be achieved.
The article is also on reasonable footing to assert that a great deal of porn depicts women as resisting or verbally objecting to sex acts as mere role play or as a precursor to then liking and desiring the acts, and that this leads some men to misinterpret the resistance and objections of actual women (it's an empirical question, but a plausible hypothesis, b/c the mind does not have separate compartments for "fiction" and reality).
Where the thesis goes off the rail is in asserting that free speech is not actually occurring unless the audience is cooperating and understanding the speakers actual intended meaning. By this foolish argument, "freedom of speech" requires that other people lack the freedom to not listen or to interpret your words as they choose. That doesn't fit with any grounded interpretation of the concept or the basic principle of individual liberty, which inherently limits liberty to acts that don't require infringing upon other's liberty. Freedom of speech is a legal principle that only protects the liberty to utter words of one's choosing (what the article calls locutionary acts), not a requirement that others cooperate with us and hear and understand what we intend by those words (what the article calls illocutionary acts).
[P]
Highlighting the absurdity of this article's thesis is the fact that it would mean that the intellect of the person who you are talking to can completely determine whether or not the identical speech act counts as "freedom of speech". IOW, if the listener is too stupid to understand you, then somehow your free speech rights were violated.
Basically, this philosopher is conceiving of a speaker and listener engaging in accurate communication as though it's all an action of the speaker, and thus a failure to achieve communication is a prevention of an individual's speech act. When in fact, "illocutionary acts" are not actually "act" by any person, but a byproduct of the coordination of different separate actions by separate individuals. And thus the concept of "free speech" which a type of individual liberty doesn't apply.
The argument starts off reasonable enough, by pointing out that just b/c we utter some words doesn't mean anyone heard and understood our intended meaning. Also that some cooperation by the listener is required for understanding to occur, and thus required for the central purpose of speech acts (to communicate an intended meaning) to be achieved.
The article is also on reasonable footing to assert that a great deal of porn depicts women as resisting or verbally objecting to sex acts as mere role play or as a precursor to then liking and desiring the acts, and that this leads some men to misinterpret the resistance and objections of actual women (it's an empirical question, but a plausible hypothesis, b/c the mind does not have separate compartments for "fiction" and reality).
Where the thesis goes off the rail is in asserting that free speech is not actually occurring unless the audience is cooperating and understanding the speakers actual intended meaning. By this foolish argument, "freedom of speech" requires that other people lack the freedom to not listen or to interpret your words as they choose. That doesn't fit with any grounded interpretation of the concept or the basic principle of individual liberty, which inherently limits liberty to acts that don't require infringing upon other's liberty. Freedom of speech is a legal principle that only protects the liberty to utter words of one's choosing (what the article calls locutionary acts), not a requirement that others cooperate with us and hear and understand what we intend by those words (what the article calls illocutionary acts).
[P]
[/P]from the article said:According to that suggestion, my performing an illocutionary act, such as warning or telling, depends on others being willing and able to recognize what I am trying to do. It is this that enables me to perform such acts. So, if others are unable or unwilling to recognize that I am trying to tell them something or warn them of something, then I won’t be able to tell or warn. That aspect of my freedom of speech will be distinctively undercut.
Highlighting the absurdity of this article's thesis is the fact that it would mean that the intellect of the person who you are talking to can completely determine whether or not the identical speech act counts as "freedom of speech". IOW, if the listener is too stupid to understand you, then somehow your free speech rights were violated.
Basically, this philosopher is conceiving of a speaker and listener engaging in accurate communication as though it's all an action of the speaker, and thus a failure to achieve communication is a prevention of an individual's speech act. When in fact, "illocutionary acts" are not actually "act" by any person, but a byproduct of the coordination of different separate actions by separate individuals. And thus the concept of "free speech" which a type of individual liberty doesn't apply.