4 ms·

> A society is better off overall if there are limits to free > speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, > etc.) Insults? You should be abl

> A society is better off overall if there are limits to free > speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, > etc.) Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. False advertisement isn't about free speech - it's about making a verbal contract and not following through. You're free to say whatever you want, and the offence isn't in the saying it, its in the failure to keep the contract. Society is rarely served by more restriction.

sabertoothed 10y ago
I don't think you are right, here. At least from a factual "as is" legal standpoint but also from my moral standpoint ("what should be" / normative). I am not sure which standpoint you are addressing. The easiest standpoint to defend is the factual / descriptive "as is" legal standpoint: Insults / defamations are legally not allowed in most countries. False advertisement IS indeed an exception to free speech. See here [1]. But maybe you were not talking about descriptive claims but normative ones. This would be a very different discussion. [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Commercial_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
paradite 10y ago
Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. This entire paragraph sounds like either paradox (first and last sentence) or sophistry.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  I think you're confusing the verb "insult" (as it, doing something with the intent of insulting someone) with the state of being insulted. TO insult someone is to ATTEMPT to make them feel insulted, but its up to that person whether or not they are insulted.
  - paradite 10y ago
    I disagree with that distinction. To be able to insult someone means that the person ends up in a state of being insulted. Any failure to do so would be a failed attempt at insulting which cannot be qualified as insulting.
    - jmcdiesel 10y ago
      You chose whether or not you are insulted by something. I have no control over whether or not you are insulted. I can try to insult you, i can try to say the worst things possible to insult you - thats "being insulting"... If you were standing next to say, a very enlightened, mindful buddhist monk - you can be insulting to him, but he will likely never be insulted. Because he choses to not be insulted. Being insulted, having hurt feelings, taking offense - these are all acts that the "victim" themselves control 100%. Nobody can make you feel insulted, nobody can make your feelings hurt, nobody can make you feel offended. These are all choices you make yourself. You're the only person in this entire world that can make yourself feel hurt, offended, or insulted.

sabertoothed 10y ago

I don't think you are right, here. At least from a factual "as is" legal standpoint but also from my moral standpoint ("what should be" / normative). I am not sure which standpoint you are addressing. The easiest standpoint to defend is the factual / descriptive "as is" legal standpoint: Insults / defamations are legally not allowed in most countries. False advertisement IS indeed an exception to free speech. See here [1]. But maybe you were not talking about descriptive claims but normative ones. This would be a very different discussion. [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Commercial_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

paradite 10y ago

Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. This entire paragraph sounds like either paradox (first and last sentence) or sophistry.

jmcdiesel 10y ago
I think you're confusing the verb "insult" (as it, doing something with the intent of insulting someone) with the state of being insulted. TO insult someone is to ATTEMPT to make them feel insulted, but its up to that person whether or not they are insulted.
- paradite 10y ago
  I disagree with that distinction. To be able to insult someone means that the person ends up in a state of being insulted. Any failure to do so would be a failed attempt at insulting which cannot be qualified as insulting.
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago
    You chose whether or not you are insulted by something. I have no control over whether or not you are insulted. I can try to insult you, i can try to say the worst things possible to insult you - thats "being insulting"... If you were standing next to say, a very enlightened, mindful buddhist monk - you can be insulting to him, but he will likely never be insulted. Because he choses to not be insulted. Being insulted, having hurt feelings, taking offense - these are all acts that the "victim" themselves control 100%. Nobody can make you feel insulted, nobody can make your feelings hurt, nobody can make you feel offended. These are all choices you make yourself. You're the only person in this entire world that can make yourself feel hurt, offended, or insulted.