5 ms·

Though it doesn't entirely answer your question, several philosophers of speech have identified no metaphysical difference between speech and non-speech, and so

Though it doesn't entirely answer your question, several philosophers of speech have identified no metaphysical difference between speech and non-speech, and some find the justifications for a law guaranteeing freedom of speech to be ultimately unfounded[0]. The issue for them is not whether speech causes harm (it does) but whether the harms are sufficient to allow some kind of regulation on speech; there is no evidence showing that speech "invariably causes less harm [than non-speech]". Several have argued this to be the case in the context of hate speech or pornography - it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions - which, as the researchers have noted, may not always be conscious[2]. [0] https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Brison-Free-Speech-Skepticism-Nov.-11-2018-copy.pdf https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Bris... [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... [2] Sue, Derald Wing. Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
> it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions Terrifying
nradov 8y ago
Your premise is flawed. Unless it's a direct incitement to violence, speech does not cause harm.
- dagw 8y ago
  That is far too narrow a view. There are many ways a person can be harmed beyond just physical violence. Instead the question we have to tackle is how much harm are we OK with.
  - nradov 8y ago
    If you believe that then you have defined "harm" so broadly as to be utterly meaningless.
    - dagw 8y ago
      Again I disagree. Complete social ostracisation for example is every bit as harmful (and almost certainly worse) than a punch to the face. Being fired from your job and/or being denied employment or advancement are again also at least as bad as a punch to the face. I could go on. Limiting "harm" to mean being the victim of physical violence is so narrow as to be utterly meaningless.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Ah, this would be the species of academic debate where a carefully referenced argument can be downvoted and rebutted with a flat unsourced statement of position?
  - nradov 8y ago
    The argument ultimately boiled down to just one person's opinion, nothing more. Adding a bunch of academic references doesn't make the author's opinion any more valid than mine. If you search around you can find just as many opposing references. So what. This isn't like actual science where anything can be verified or disproven.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  That's not true at all; threats, for instance, are not incitements to violence, yet they cause harm. Fraud can be speech, but it is harmful. One philosopher noted how in his profession, if someone broke his left leg, this would not even compare to the kind of harm he'd suffer if someone wrote an slanderous piece against him and published it in a big newspaper. "Whites only" signs can be said to cause harm. Put it this way: if speech cannot cause any harm, then it would be almost pointless to have a law which guarantees freedom of speech. Aside from all this, the first source I linked is a good paper that already goes over this distinction of harm which you've outlined and how baseless it is. As I have already said: there is no metaphysical difference between speech and non-speech actions: >I argued that all speech is conduct, involving an agent, and all conduct, being intentional action, is expressive (of the motivating intention); that speech does not differ from other conduct in being context-dependent and subject to interpretation; that speech is a physical phenomenon, having physical effects on its listeners, effects which can be caused by the content of the speech; and that verbal assaults can be harmful in the same ways that assaults involving direct bodily contact are. For these (and other) reasons, I concluded that the attempt to assimilate freedom of speech to freedom of thought and in that way distinguish it from freedom of action fails.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Speech and violence are both expressive intentional action, therefore they are the same? This seems a very basic sort of logical error. (Perhaps affirming the consequent?)
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      No. You've misread the argument; she is only enumerating what she has deduced, and the first deduction is that speech and physical assault are both expressive intentional action. This premise was in doubt in the paper she was responding to. She never claims that speech and physical assault are at all the same, but rather, that speech does not merit a special category when differentiated from other actions.
      - 8y ago
davemp 8y ago
From your 0th citation: "Please don’t cite or circulate it beyond the workshop."

gdfasfklshg4 8y ago

> it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions Terrifying

nradov 8y ago

Your premise is flawed. Unless it's a direct incitement to violence, speech does not cause harm.

dagw 8y ago
That is far too narrow a view. There are many ways a person can be harmed beyond just physical violence. Instead the question we have to tackle is how much harm are we OK with.
- nradov 8y ago
  If you believe that then you have defined "harm" so broadly as to be utterly meaningless.
  - dagw 8y ago
    Again I disagree. Complete social ostracisation for example is every bit as harmful (and almost certainly worse) than a punch to the face. Being fired from your job and/or being denied employment or advancement are again also at least as bad as a punch to the face. I could go on. Limiting "harm" to mean being the victim of physical violence is so narrow as to be utterly meaningless.
pjc50 8y ago
Ah, this would be the species of academic debate where a carefully referenced argument can be downvoted and rebutted with a flat unsourced statement of position?
- nradov 8y ago
  The argument ultimately boiled down to just one person's opinion, nothing more. Adding a bunch of academic references doesn't make the author's opinion any more valid than mine. If you search around you can find just as many opposing references. So what. This isn't like actual science where anything can be verified or disproven.
claudiawerner 8y ago
That's not true at all; threats, for instance, are not incitements to violence, yet they cause harm. Fraud can be speech, but it is harmful. One philosopher noted how in his profession, if someone broke his left leg, this would not even compare to the kind of harm he'd suffer if someone wrote an slanderous piece against him and published it in a big newspaper. "Whites only" signs can be said to cause harm. Put it this way: if speech cannot cause any harm, then it would be almost pointless to have a law which guarantees freedom of speech. Aside from all this, the first source I linked is a good paper that already goes over this distinction of harm which you've outlined and how baseless it is. As I have already said: there is no metaphysical difference between speech and non-speech actions: >I argued that all speech is conduct, involving an agent, and all conduct, being intentional action, is expressive (of the motivating intention); that speech does not differ from other conduct in being context-dependent and subject to interpretation; that speech is a physical phenomenon, having physical effects on its listeners, effects which can be caused by the content of the speech; and that verbal assaults can be harmful in the same ways that assaults involving direct bodily contact are. For these (and other) reasons, I concluded that the attempt to assimilate freedom of speech to freedom of thought and in that way distinguish it from freedom of action fails.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Speech and violence are both expressive intentional action, therefore they are the same? This seems a very basic sort of logical error. (Perhaps affirming the consequent?)
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    No. You've misread the argument; she is only enumerating what she has deduced, and the first deduction is that speech and physical assault are both expressive intentional action. This premise was in doubt in the paper she was responding to. She never claims that speech and physical assault are at all the same, but rather, that speech does not merit a special category when differentiated from other actions.
    - 8y ago

davemp 8y ago

From your 0th citation: "Please don’t cite or circulate it beyond the workshop."