5 ms·

That's not the case; if speech is considered an action like any other, it can be regulated like any other action. The implication is not that actions are forbid

That's not the case; if speech is considered an action like any other, it can be regulated like any other action. The implication is not that actions are forbidden unless they are specifically allowed. You aren't specifically allowed to eat fries or post comments on HN - yet you do so anyway. And you would, rightly, resist a law which says you can't, just as you'd resist a law which contravenes a constitutional right to freedom of speech.

jessaustin 8y ago
OK you finally confused me enough that I had to click through your link and read. I was somewhat disconcerted that the first thing I read was "please don't distribute this link publicly" (was that ironic?). Later on when discussing the crux of this thread (is there a significant difference between speech and other physical actions?), the author dropped an "[as] I’ve argued in previous work..." on us. There is reference to the mind-body problem, and there is some teasing about apparent contradictions perceived in random writings about speech, but no actual argument on this particular topic exists at this link. Like much contemporary philosophy, this whole thing misses the forest for the trees. Toward the end the author quoted Schauer thus: The ache, it seems to me, is caused by the fact that although the answer to ‘Must speech be special?’ is probably ‘Yes’, the answer to ‘Is speech special?’ is probably ‘No’.” Can we just accept this as a compromise? Truth is less important than practice. Authorities at every level seek constantly to police the acceptable boundaries of public thought. They do this for their own interest. The justice system is not and cannot be perfect, especially in defending the public from that policing. A special status for speech is an important bulwark against authoritarianism.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  It was probably my mistake to link the paper despite it being the best resource I could remember reading, and a mistake on two fronts: firstly since it's aworkshop paper as you note, an secondly because the more forceful refutation of the speech as separate argument is in the other paper she mentions. That said, this one seemed more relevant to the legal aspects and the issue of free speech rather than only the metaphysical aspects of speech. At the very least, the paper (convincingly in my view) refutes or at least mentions refutations of the main arguments for a specific right to freedom of speech (such as the truth argument or the democracy argument). Regarding the bulwark against authoritarianism, this is already hinted to - being particularly hazardous about policing speech doesn't make so much sense when we already legislate on many other issues which seem to have bigger effects - such as food safety regulation, or the law of murder, or laws against literal genocide. I feel similar to Schauer here, but I'm uncomfortable about taking the plunge and sticking to the unjustified status quo which already seems to produce unfavorable results without much going for it. Even under a system with no free speech law, we'd have no reason to think political speech would necessarily be repressed but good reason to think that various reasoned arguments against hate speech and pornography would be entertained - to me that's a good thing.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    In that case you simply disagree with the Constitution and many free speech fundamentalists about how public discourse works, nowadays even more than centuries ago. That's fine, but there is no need to dress up a simple factual disagreement in all that philosophy. There isn't much contemporary controversy about whether murder and genocide should be illegal, although of course there are exceptions about which there is also not much argument. In USA history, curtailing the Bill of Rights has always been a bad thing. Expanding it, e.g. through 14A incorporation, has always been good.

jessaustin 8y ago

OK you finally confused me enough that I had to click through your link and read. I was somewhat disconcerted that the first thing I read was "please don't distribute this link publicly" (was that ironic?). Later on when discussing the crux of this thread (is there a significant difference between speech and other physical actions?), the author dropped an "[as] I’ve argued in previous work..." on us. There is reference to the mind-body problem, and there is some teasing about apparent contradictions perceived in random writings about speech, but no actual argument on this particular topic exists at this link. Like much contemporary philosophy, this whole thing misses the forest for the trees. Toward the end the author quoted Schauer thus: The ache, it seems to me, is caused by the fact that although the answer to ‘Must speech be special?’ is probably ‘Yes’, the answer to ‘Is speech special?’ is probably ‘No’.” Can we just accept this as a compromise? Truth is less important than practice. Authorities at every level seek constantly to police the acceptable boundaries of public thought. They do this for their own interest. The justice system is not and cannot be perfect, especially in defending the public from that policing. A special status for speech is an important bulwark against authoritarianism.

claudiawerner 8y ago
It was probably my mistake to link the paper despite it being the best resource I could remember reading, and a mistake on two fronts: firstly since it's aworkshop paper as you note, an secondly because the more forceful refutation of the speech as separate argument is in the other paper she mentions. That said, this one seemed more relevant to the legal aspects and the issue of free speech rather than only the metaphysical aspects of speech. At the very least, the paper (convincingly in my view) refutes or at least mentions refutations of the main arguments for a specific right to freedom of speech (such as the truth argument or the democracy argument). Regarding the bulwark against authoritarianism, this is already hinted to - being particularly hazardous about policing speech doesn't make so much sense when we already legislate on many other issues which seem to have bigger effects - such as food safety regulation, or the law of murder, or laws against literal genocide. I feel similar to Schauer here, but I'm uncomfortable about taking the plunge and sticking to the unjustified status quo which already seems to produce unfavorable results without much going for it. Even under a system with no free speech law, we'd have no reason to think political speech would necessarily be repressed but good reason to think that various reasoned arguments against hate speech and pornography would be entertained - to me that's a good thing.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  In that case you simply disagree with the Constitution and many free speech fundamentalists about how public discourse works, nowadays even more than centuries ago. That's fine, but there is no need to dress up a simple factual disagreement in all that philosophy. There isn't much contemporary controversy about whether murder and genocide should be illegal, although of course there are exceptions about which there is also not much argument. In USA history, curtailing the Bill of Rights has always been a bad thing. Expanding it, e.g. through 14A incorporation, has always been good.