4 ms·

She was... intimidated? Seriously? You think it's reasonable to curtail free speech in other people to prevent intimidation?

by tsotha 11y ago

pron 11y ago
What constitutes "reasonable" is a hard question. What I know is that all societies on this planet curtail speech to prevent intimidation. They only vary on the degree of intimidation they forbid. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I also, again, must take issue with the use of "free speech" in this context. It is not at all clear that it even applies to every sequence of letters a person types or every utterance a person makes. At its very core -- or consensus -- free speech means the freedom to express all ideas and opinions without fear of arrest. It is not at all clear that "I would like to rape Ellen Pao" is either an idea or an opinion, and therefore I don't mind discussing whether we should allow such things to be said, but I do mind including them under the umbrella of "free speech" (my objection is not on principal grounds but on aesthetic grounds). I do believe that every person should have the right to freely express his or her ideas in public without fear of arrest, and I think that this value is rather high in priority. But I agree with all other free societies (including the US[1]), which think that this freedom does not apply (and I'm not talking about various exceptions to that freedom based on offense) to certain combinations of words that constitute neither ideas nor opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- woodman 11y ago
  > ...I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I'm not sure how you define "system of ethics", but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. I'd be surprised if you've never heard of anarcho-capitalism, that is the first such system that comes to mind.
  - pron 11y ago
    > but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. "Freedom" is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a lack of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can't both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint). In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It might have different relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values). The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can't have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a single line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.
    - woodman 11y ago
      > Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values... > ...anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It has been several years since I last gave this a lot of thought, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I only remember one universal principle in anarcho-capitalism: aggression is immoral. From that single precept every other value is derived - property rights, self ownership, etc. As I said, it has been a while, but I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency. So do you have a contradiction that you can point to? > ...am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy. > This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values). An anarchic system that has laws is not an anarchic system... maybe this is another hint at the point of confusion. Anarcho-capitalism is not really a form of governance, it is a philosophy that informs thinking related to interaction between individuals. It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice - you decide if you want to do business with murders or those who consort with murders. I am very interested to hear about any logical inconsistencies you've found, because absent that your first two paragraphs are totally wrong.

She was... intimidated? Seriously? You think it's reasonable to curtail free speech in other people to prevent intimidation?

by tsotha 11y ago

She was... intimidated? Seriously? You think it's reasonable to curtail free speech in other people to prevent intimidation?

pron 11y ago

What constitutes "reasonable" is a hard question. What I know is that all societies on this planet curtail speech to prevent intimidation. They only vary on the degree of intimidation they forbid. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I also, again, must take issue with the use of "free speech" in this context. It is not at all clear that it even applies to every sequence of letters a person types or every utterance a person makes. At its very core -- or consensus -- free speech means the freedom to express all ideas and opinions without fear of arrest. It is not at all clear that "I would like to rape Ellen Pao" is either an idea or an opinion, and therefore I don't mind discussing whether we should allow such things to be said, but I do mind including them under the umbrella of "free speech" (my objection is not on principal grounds but on aesthetic grounds). I do believe that every person should have the right to freely express his or her ideas in public without fear of arrest, and I think that this value is rather high in priority. But I agree with all other free societies (including the US[1]), which think that this freedom does not apply (and I'm not talking about various exceptions to that freedom based on offense) to certain combinations of words that constitute neither ideas nor opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

woodman 11y ago
> ...I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I'm not sure how you define "system of ethics", but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. I'd be surprised if you've never heard of anarcho-capitalism, that is the first such system that comes to mind.
- pron 11y ago
  > but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. "Freedom" is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a lack of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can't both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint). In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It might have different relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values). The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can't have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a single line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.
  - woodman 11y ago
    > Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values... > ...anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It has been several years since I last gave this a lot of thought, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I only remember one universal principle in anarcho-capitalism: aggression is immoral. From that single precept every other value is derived - property rights, self ownership, etc. As I said, it has been a while, but I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency. So do you have a contradiction that you can point to? > ...am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy. > This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values). An anarchic system that has laws is not an anarchic system... maybe this is another hint at the point of confusion. Anarcho-capitalism is not really a form of governance, it is a philosophy that informs thinking related to interaction between individuals. It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice - you decide if you want to do business with murders or those who consort with murders. I am very interested to hear about any logical inconsistencies you've found, because absent that your first two paragraphs are totally wrong.