4 ms·

I tried to quote as much as possible because basically every paragraph hedges the former. This is the paragraph that immediately follows yours: > But though th

I tried to quote as much as possible because basically every paragraph hedges the former. This is the paragraph that immediately follows yours: > But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control— is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. > All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table. We can agree that the pendulum has swung too far, without spiking it in the other direction.

pdonis 6y ago
> It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table. Actually, speech is probably the one area that actually realizes Mill's otherwise unrealistic ideal case for when society should have no jurisdiction over individual action: "when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding)" Mere speech cannot affect the interests of anyone: words are not magic spells. So by Mill's logic, society should indeed have no jurisdiction over speech--absolute free speech should not be off the table.
- imustbeevil 6y ago
  That's one interpretation. Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    Coercion and fraud are not speech. More generally, verbal statements that are part of other actions, such as negotiations for a market transaction, are not speech. The whole point of "speech" is that it is just expressing the beliefs or opinions of the speaker.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Speech is almost always purposeful, and when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process, ie, how things are done. Not that I disagree that speech should be free, but I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Depends on what you mean by "ulterior motive". If it's just speech, it is an expression of belief or opinion, as I said, and that is all it is. Everyone who hears it can judge it for themselves solely as an expression of belief or opinion. If it's a belief or opinion about public policy, any honest motive for expressing it will be part of the speech itself, so it won't be an "ulterior" motive in the sense of being hidden. If it is not evident what a person's motives are for expressing a belief or opinion about public policy, any sane hearer will take that fact into account when judging the speech. If the hearer is not being given the freedom to make such judgments, then we're not talking about speech any more, we're talking about coercion or fraud. > when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process No, it's an action intended to influence other people--but whether it does or not depends on the merits of what is said. Speech by itself can't change the political process; that requires changing the Constitution or laws. > I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism. I think it is absurd and lacks realism to refuse to recognize the distinction between speech and action. The whole point of having the category "speech" at all is to force people to accept the reality that, if you want to live in a free country, you have to be enough of a mature adult to be able to tolerate people expressing beliefs that you think are false and opinions that you abhor. In a free country, the proper response to speech you think is wrong is more speech to refute or rebut the speech you think is wrong. Once the idea takes hold that it's okay to suppress people just because they say things you think are wrong, we no longer have a free country. Talk about "ulterior motives" is really just another way of suppressing people who say things you think are wrong.

pdonis 6y ago

> It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table. Actually, speech is probably the one area that actually realizes Mill's otherwise unrealistic ideal case for when society should have no jurisdiction over individual action: "when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding)" Mere speech cannot affect the interests of anyone: words are not magic spells. So by Mill's logic, society should indeed have no jurisdiction over speech--absolute free speech should not be off the table.

imustbeevil 6y ago
That's one interpretation. Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.
- pdonis 6y ago
  Coercion and fraud are not speech. More generally, verbal statements that are part of other actions, such as negotiations for a market transaction, are not speech. The whole point of "speech" is that it is just expressing the beliefs or opinions of the speaker.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Speech is almost always purposeful, and when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process, ie, how things are done. Not that I disagree that speech should be free, but I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Depends on what you mean by "ulterior motive". If it's just speech, it is an expression of belief or opinion, as I said, and that is all it is. Everyone who hears it can judge it for themselves solely as an expression of belief or opinion. If it's a belief or opinion about public policy, any honest motive for expressing it will be part of the speech itself, so it won't be an "ulterior" motive in the sense of being hidden. If it is not evident what a person's motives are for expressing a belief or opinion about public policy, any sane hearer will take that fact into account when judging the speech. If the hearer is not being given the freedom to make such judgments, then we're not talking about speech any more, we're talking about coercion or fraud. > when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process No, it's an action intended to influence other people--but whether it does or not depends on the merits of what is said. Speech by itself can't change the political process; that requires changing the Constitution or laws. > I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism. I think it is absurd and lacks realism to refuse to recognize the distinction between speech and action. The whole point of having the category "speech" at all is to force people to accept the reality that, if you want to live in a free country, you have to be enough of a mature adult to be able to tolerate people expressing beliefs that you think are false and opinions that you abhor. In a free country, the proper response to speech you think is wrong is more speech to refute or rebut the speech you think is wrong. Once the idea takes hold that it's okay to suppress people just because they say things you think are wrong, we no longer have a free country. Talk about "ulterior motives" is really just another way of suppressing people who say things you think are wrong.