4 ms·

Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.

by gizmo 9y ago

rendall 9y ago
Indeed. I would argue those examples are not protected "free speech", since their intent is to cause imminent harm. But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal. Let's turn it around: Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two. In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned. In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion. In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence? From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.
- gizmo 9y ago
  We don't have to take your hypothetical as a hypothetical. After WW2 Germany banned books espousing Nazi ideology, and punished similar speech because they learned first-hand what happens when you let that ideology roam free. And free speech didn't die. Germany today is one of the freest countries in the world.
  - ghoststories 9y ago
    The "banning" of media that espouses Nazi ideology is actually very limited in Germany. Hitler's "Mein Kampf", for instance, is not actually banned. Germany may be "one of the freest" countries, but they too now have far-right parties in their parliament and there have been hundreds of attacks (assaults, firebombings) on refugees. Also, Neo-Nazi ideology is still popular in the East, despite all the efforts of the socialist government against it. If people are shoved an ideology down their throats, the alternatives suddenly look much more attractive. I'm firmly convinced that it is the left that got Trump elected, not the right.

Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.

by gizmo 9y ago

Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.

rendall 9y ago

Indeed. I would argue those examples are not protected "free speech", since their intent is to cause imminent harm. But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal. Let's turn it around: Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two. In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned. In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion. In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence? From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.

gizmo 9y ago
We don't have to take your hypothetical as a hypothetical. After WW2 Germany banned books espousing Nazi ideology, and punished similar speech because they learned first-hand what happens when you let that ideology roam free. And free speech didn't die. Germany today is one of the freest countries in the world.
- ghoststories 9y ago
  The "banning" of media that espouses Nazi ideology is actually very limited in Germany. Hitler's "Mein Kampf", for instance, is not actually banned. Germany may be "one of the freest" countries, but they too now have far-right parties in their parliament and there have been hundreds of attacks (assaults, firebombings) on refugees. Also, Neo-Nazi ideology is still popular in the East, despite all the efforts of the socialist government against it. If people are shoved an ideology down their throats, the alternatives suddenly look much more attractive. I'm firmly convinced that it is the left that got Trump elected, not the right.