5 ms·

There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assumi

There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right. This is a pretty solid argument for freedom of speech in the sense in which it is generally protected: as something that contributes to public dialogue in politics, the sciences and the arts. Many things seem to be this but aren’t. Hate speech is not an opinion in this sense: it is not something presented as an argument or topic for discussion. You are either with the haters, or you are against them. Whether something is political speech or not depends very much on how it is offered to the public. The same idea — memory safety is a recent, innocuous example from this forum — can be a rallying cry for some and a point of discussion for others.

printf_kek0 9y ago
> Hate speech is not an opinion in this sense: it is not something presented as an argument or topic for discussion. According to J.S. Mill, free speech should only be constrained to the extent that it violates what he calls the harm principle: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He makes a distinction between causing harm and causing offense. Revulsion, disgust, psychologically upsetting speech, discriminatory speech, insults and so forth fall under the latter category. Free speech which merely causes offense should not be prohibited according to Mill however controversial or contrary to social norms such speech is. But how strong the definition of the "harm principle" should be is subject to debate. Contrast for instance, screaming "Fire!!" in a theater - which might cause injury and death from a crowd stampede - with "All <insert_ethnic_group> are inherently inferior to <insert_other_ethnic_group>". The difference between causing harm and offense is that harm is universally injurious, whereas as what causes offense is only experienced subjectively. Although I find blatant hate speech detestable, there is a worrying trend where a majority of people consider hate speech to mean "anything that we disagree with". In our times, it is difficult to speak frankly or be a contrarian without being demonized. And this is precisely what J.S. Mill calls "tyranny of the majority" and consequentially what leads to loss of individuality in society.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dvanduzer 9y ago
  It is not difficult to discern whether a candidate for hate speech violates Mill's harm principle. Speech of the form "All <insert_ethnic_group> are inherently inferior to <insert_other_ethnic_group>" does not exist in a vacuum without any corresponding systemic / institutional problem. I think you're saying speech like that merely causes offense, and not harm, which gives me the general impression that you are arguing in bad faith.
  - austincheney 9y ago
    > I think you're saying speech like that merely causes offense, and not harm, which gives me the general impression that you are arguing in bad faith. It seems you understand the correct answer in accordance with Mill, but then willfully choose to ignore that answer since it differs with your personal value system. To be very direct, hate speech does not violate the harm principle in the same immediacy or capacity as does yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.
    - dvanduzer 9y ago
      I'd challenge you to find some specific emphasis about immediacy in Mill's explanation of the harm principle, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith either.
      - austincheney 9y ago
        In that case how would hate speech qualify as a valid exception to liberty according to Mill?
        dvanduzer 9y ago
        I am having trouble with all the disembodied concepts in your question. The very notion of classifying hate speech differently from "regular" speech, is predicated on the idea that some speech does, in fact, cause harm. If J.S. Mill were here right now, he might concede that it is hard to find philosophical justification to treat the crime of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater differently than the crime of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater with the intent of killing people of a specific ethnic background... No writer in the 19th century could have conceived of what "speech" would mean 150 years later in the context of instant worldwide communication. But Mill would not have trouble classifying the expression of certain opinions in certain contexts as causing harm. There is no major logical twist required to "infringe" on liberty in the case of hate speech, and remain consistent with Mill's writings.
int_19h 9y ago
The definition of "hate speech" is itself a matter of opinion, however. Of late, it seems to be more and more used as a general way to describe speech one doesn't like. For example, I've seen people claim that Damore's essay is "hate speech", on the basis that it justifies and enables discrimination.
- dvanduzer 9y ago
  Do you realize that you switched from comparing "speech one doesn't like" to "speech that enables discrimination" in the middle of your argument?
bobthechef 9y ago
"Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right." Does that claim apply to itself? I.e., what if I were to claim the negation of that?

printf_kek0 9y ago

> Hate speech is not an opinion in this sense: it is not something presented as an argument or topic for discussion. According to J.S. Mill, free speech should only be constrained to the extent that it violates what he calls the harm principle: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He makes a distinction between causing harm and causing offense. Revulsion, disgust, psychologically upsetting speech, discriminatory speech, insults and so forth fall under the latter category. Free speech which merely causes offense should not be prohibited according to Mill however controversial or contrary to social norms such speech is. But how strong the definition of the "harm principle" should be is subject to debate. Contrast for instance, screaming "Fire!!" in a theater - which might cause injury and death from a crowd stampede - with "All <insert_ethnic_group> are inherently inferior to <insert_other_ethnic_group>". The difference between causing harm and offense is that harm is universally injurious, whereas as what causes offense is only experienced subjectively. Although I find blatant hate speech detestable, there is a worrying trend where a majority of people consider hate speech to mean "anything that we disagree with". In our times, it is difficult to speak frankly or be a contrarian without being demonized. And this is precisely what J.S. Mill calls "tyranny of the majority" and consequentially what leads to loss of individuality in society.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dvanduzer 9y ago
It is not difficult to discern whether a candidate for hate speech violates Mill's harm principle. Speech of the form "All <insert_ethnic_group> are inherently inferior to <insert_other_ethnic_group>" does not exist in a vacuum without any corresponding systemic / institutional problem. I think you're saying speech like that merely causes offense, and not harm, which gives me the general impression that you are arguing in bad faith.
- austincheney 9y ago
  > I think you're saying speech like that merely causes offense, and not harm, which gives me the general impression that you are arguing in bad faith. It seems you understand the correct answer in accordance with Mill, but then willfully choose to ignore that answer since it differs with your personal value system. To be very direct, hate speech does not violate the harm principle in the same immediacy or capacity as does yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.
  - dvanduzer 9y ago
    I'd challenge you to find some specific emphasis about immediacy in Mill's explanation of the harm principle, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith either.
    - austincheney 9y ago
      In that case how would hate speech qualify as a valid exception to liberty according to Mill?
      - dvanduzer 9y ago
        I am having trouble with all the disembodied concepts in your question. The very notion of classifying hate speech differently from "regular" speech, is predicated on the idea that some speech does, in fact, cause harm. If J.S. Mill were here right now, he might concede that it is hard to find philosophical justification to treat the crime of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater differently than the crime of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater with the intent of killing people of a specific ethnic background... No writer in the 19th century could have conceived of what "speech" would mean 150 years later in the context of instant worldwide communication. But Mill would not have trouble classifying the expression of certain opinions in certain contexts as causing harm. There is no major logical twist required to "infringe" on liberty in the case of hate speech, and remain consistent with Mill's writings.

int_19h 9y ago

The definition of "hate speech" is itself a matter of opinion, however. Of late, it seems to be more and more used as a general way to describe speech one doesn't like. For example, I've seen people claim that Damore's essay is "hate speech", on the basis that it justifies and enables discrimination.

dvanduzer 9y ago
Do you realize that you switched from comparing "speech one doesn't like" to "speech that enables discrimination" in the middle of your argument?

bobthechef 9y ago

"Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right." Does that claim apply to itself? I.e., what if I were to claim the negation of that?