4 ms·

You seem to be advocating that all speech should be permitted, and that anything less is unacceptable. I disagree. I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum

You seem to be advocating that all speech should be permitted, and that anything less is unacceptable. I disagree. I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated. I agree that we should be cautious that this line does not creep into acceptable speech, and that the mechanisms used to enact these decisions are not re-purposed inappropriately. I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech difficult, and that encryption algorithms and other mathematical constructs make no distinction between acceptable and unacceptable speech. But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society.

mythrwy 9y ago
I think the line is a lot clearer than that. Incitement to violence, slander, false statements that result in public harm ("fire in crowded theater"), that sort of thing is where the law should be involved. But there shouldn't be laws against bad manners.
eighthnate 9y ago
> I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. That's the reason why we have free speech rights ( in america at least ). So that people can't use and exploit the "gray" as an excuse to censor everyone. > A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated. If the ideas are terrible, they should be promulgated and shown for all to see. > I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech difficult Actually, technology makes suppression of speech easy. > But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society. Which opinions? You make generalizations and don't speak of any specifics? And who gets to decide which speech shouldn't be tolerated?
- Larrikin 9y ago
  Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. Treating them like they are sends you directly in the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. In which case it's a good thing Larrikin has a well defined definition of "political arguments with sound reasons" we can use in legislation. Snark aside, this post steps over and then directly back into the "who determines what's acceptable speech?" problem. Few will disagree with your extreme example, but your extreme example isn't what people are worried about. To hell with the people who actually advocate nazi ideology - I'm a lot more worried about what the overreaction to their stupidity will bring, that overreaction being a much more clear and present danger.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about tolerating violent actions. If you tolerate hate speech, there's no paradox: you can do so, without surrendering the protection against intolerance for those members that speech targets.
    - grzm 9y ago
      > The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about tolerating violent actions. While I can understand the motivation to interpret it this way, it seems directly counter to Popper: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...
indubitable 9y ago
It's interesting to consider that Saudi Arabia could justify their actions in the exact same way. Keep in mind that they still sentence individuals to death for everything from sorcery, to adultery, to apostasy. Their views on "these terrible ideas that must not be promulgated" are going to be different than ours. Interestingly enough even our ideas on this constantly change throughout time. If we lived in a country without such rigid protections of free speech there is every reason to believe we would have, not that far back in the past, declared things such as discussions of suffrage, or the abolition of slavery as "terrible ideas which must not be allowed to be promulgated." Suppression of free speech is a cornerstone of despotism. It is paradoxical to me that people are lobbying for this given the state of our government today. I could, to some degree, understand thoughts of enabling the government to suppress free speech if we had a practical utopia of a government which you could fully trust to be judicious, responsible, and deliberate with any utilization of said powers. But that is certainly not our present situation. And that is the issue that is confusing to me. One needs not appeal to some possible future situation to see why this would be an undesirable idea. Look at our president, look at our congress. Does anybody truly want to give these people the power to criminalize words? How long would it take before we'd have an act with a 3 or 4 letter acronym that was aimed at using said powers, we've now vested in our government, to deter critique of the government itself? I'm sure they could come up with an excellent name like the "Freedom of Speech Expansion Act". FSEA. Of course we would go into an outrage and use all of our social media power to write lots of angry letters, start some digital petitions, and maybe even get facebook and google to show an icon on their homepages to 'raise awareness.' And the government would relent. Of course before we'd even finished cheering our amazing victory, an "Amendment for Socially Constructive Discussion" (which is oddly identical to the FSEA) would be quietly attached to a defense or other must-pass bill, and the FSEA becomes law. Feel free to complain. Hopefully it would still be legal to do so. Does this sound in any way unbelievable or hyperbolic? Now take the contrary. Our government reluctantly passes the bill granting themselves substantially more power, but uses it only judiciously, fairly, and with the utmost concern for the implications of their actions. Constantly ensuring they never give way to companies lobbying for "speech modifications" and ensuring to never overstep any invisible boundaries that would hinder the rights of citizens. Oh yes, and this also continues on indefinitely through each and every congress. Which sounds more probable?
KGIII 9y ago
The right to free speech isn't for acceptable speech. Acceptable speech needs no protection. It's there specifically for speech that isn't considered correct. This rights so important that they listed it first. It protects the deplorable because the acceptable needs no protection. You are not the arbiter of what is and isn't lawful, thankfully. Yeah, Nazis suck, but they are still afforded basic human rights, that of freedom of expression. We've clearly decided this.

mythrwy 9y ago

I think the line is a lot clearer than that. Incitement to violence, slander, false statements that result in public harm ("fire in crowded theater"), that sort of thing is where the law should be involved. But there shouldn't be laws against bad manners.

eighthnate 9y ago

> I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in) violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. That's the reason why we have free speech rights ( in america at least ). So that people can't use and exploit the "gray" as an excuse to censor everyone. > A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated. If the ideas are terrible, they should be promulgated and shown for all to see. > I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech difficult Actually, technology makes suppression of speech easy. > But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society. Which opinions? You make generalizations and don't speak of any specifics? And who gets to decide which speech shouldn't be tolerated?

Larrikin 9y ago
Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. Treating them like they are sends you directly in the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. In which case it's a good thing Larrikin has a well defined definition of "political arguments with sound reasons" we can use in legislation. Snark aside, this post steps over and then directly back into the "who determines what's acceptable speech?" problem. Few will disagree with your extreme example, but your extreme example isn't what people are worried about. To hell with the people who actually advocate nazi ideology - I'm a lot more worried about what the overreaction to their stupidity will bring, that overreaction being a much more clear and present danger.
- int_19h 9y ago
  The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about tolerating violent actions. If you tolerate hate speech, there's no paradox: you can do so, without surrendering the protection against intolerance for those members that speech targets.
  - grzm 9y ago
    > The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about tolerating violent actions. While I can understand the motivation to interpret it this way, it seems directly counter to Popper: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...

indubitable 9y ago

It's interesting to consider that Saudi Arabia could justify their actions in the exact same way. Keep in mind that they still sentence individuals to death for everything from sorcery, to adultery, to apostasy. Their views on "these terrible ideas that must not be promulgated" are going to be different than ours. Interestingly enough even our ideas on this constantly change throughout time. If we lived in a country without such rigid protections of free speech there is every reason to believe we would have, not that far back in the past, declared things such as discussions of suffrage, or the abolition of slavery as "terrible ideas which must not be allowed to be promulgated." Suppression of free speech is a cornerstone of despotism. It is paradoxical to me that people are lobbying for this given the state of our government today. I could, to some degree, understand thoughts of enabling the government to suppress free speech if we had a practical utopia of a government which you could fully trust to be judicious, responsible, and deliberate with any utilization of said powers. But that is certainly not our present situation. And that is the issue that is confusing to me. One needs not appeal to some possible future situation to see why this would be an undesirable idea. Look at our president, look at our congress. Does anybody truly want to give these people the power to criminalize words? How long would it take before we'd have an act with a 3 or 4 letter acronym that was aimed at using said powers, we've now vested in our government, to deter critique of the government itself? I'm sure they could come up with an excellent name like the "Freedom of Speech Expansion Act". FSEA. Of course we would go into an outrage and use all of our social media power to write lots of angry letters, start some digital petitions, and maybe even get facebook and google to show an icon on their homepages to 'raise awareness.' And the government would relent. Of course before we'd even finished cheering our amazing victory, an "Amendment for Socially Constructive Discussion" (which is oddly identical to the FSEA) would be quietly attached to a defense or other must-pass bill, and the FSEA becomes law. Feel free to complain. Hopefully it would still be legal to do so. Does this sound in any way unbelievable or hyperbolic? Now take the contrary. Our government reluctantly passes the bill granting themselves substantially more power, but uses it only judiciously, fairly, and with the utmost concern for the implications of their actions. Constantly ensuring they never give way to companies lobbying for "speech modifications" and ensuring to never overstep any invisible boundaries that would hinder the rights of citizens. Oh yes, and this also continues on indefinitely through each and every congress. Which sounds more probable?

KGIII 9y ago

The right to free speech isn't for acceptable speech. Acceptable speech needs no protection. It's there specifically for speech that isn't considered correct. This rights so important that they listed it first. It protects the deplorable because the acceptable needs no protection. You are not the arbiter of what is and isn't lawful, thankfully. Yeah, Nazis suck, but they are still afforded basic human rights, that of freedom of expression. We've clearly decided this.