4 ms·

I don't contend that. I'm arguing that the cost of the move to a perception based standard is far higher than the former. I'm arguing that it is, in effect, com

I don't contend that. I'm arguing that the cost of the move to a perception based standard is far higher than the former. I'm arguing that it is, in effect, completely unenforceable, arbitrary, and destructive to not just individuals, but society as a whole. Free speech is not without cost, but it has been successfully utilised to everyone's benefit for hundreds of years. I can only surmise that those advocating for this have never read about or understood the importance of the Enlightenment. They don't understand the horror of living under a social regime where the powerful control language and effectively thought. They don't understand why the ability to risk offense is critical for democracy, science, and social progress. Eliminating free speech will harm the most vulnerable in society; not the most powerful.

forgingahead 5y ago
I can only surmise that those advocating for this have never read about or understood the importance of the Enlightenment. They don't understand the horror of living under a social regime where the powerful control language and effectively thought. They don't understand why the ability to risk offense is critical for democracy, science, and social progress. Eliminating free speech will harm the most vulnerable in society; not the most powerful. You are certainly correct - unfortunately the people burning the books are not the ones reading or writing them (even if they pretend to do so, with advanced credentials or padded resumes).
watwut 5y ago
> Free speech is not without cost, but it has been successfully utilised to everyone's benefit for hundreds of years. American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death. All within the scope you talk about. The time span you talk about include runup to civil war, civil war, reconstruction - all of which were full of political violence. This also when dueling was the thing. Where men of means were expected to shoot each other over words. If you did not, you was effectively over in that town. And the line between "duel worthy" offense and not could be very thin. > Eliminating free speech will harm the most vulnerable in society; not the most powerful. Moreover, we are not talking here about legal standard at all. Neither was legal standard EVER. You could legally seek to insult and offend people as much as you wanted. Nobody cared about intent. This is about when people say "you are jerk". There is threat to free speech, especially with new proposed laws, but it has zero to do with intent vs effect.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  >American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death. You would think we would learn from these examples and make offensive speech more acceptable, rather than less. I'm not sure how you conflated legality with social acceptance. My arguments center around the later.
- mbg721 5y ago
  I don't know that you can take dueling at face-value; dueling got to the point where you were expected to show up to the duel, but actually shooting someone dead was classless and would have made you a social pariah.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death. All within the scope you talk about. The time span you talk about include runup to civil war, civil war, reconstruction - all of which were full of political violence. Now do European history pre-enlightement. It was way, way worse. Shit talk the church and the inquisition slows up. Complain about the cut of your grain that the mill takes and the local lord threatens you lest other peasants start complaining. The acceptance of freedom of speech as a general principal has greatly increased the civility of civilization.

forgingahead 5y ago

I can only surmise that those advocating for this have never read about or understood the importance of the Enlightenment. They don't understand the horror of living under a social regime where the powerful control language and effectively thought. They don't understand why the ability to risk offense is critical for democracy, science, and social progress. Eliminating free speech will harm the most vulnerable in society; not the most powerful. You are certainly correct - unfortunately the people burning the books are not the ones reading or writing them (even if they pretend to do so, with advanced credentials or padded resumes).

watwut 5y ago

> Free speech is not without cost, but it has been successfully utilised to everyone's benefit for hundreds of years. American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death. All within the scope you talk about. The time span you talk about include runup to civil war, civil war, reconstruction - all of which were full of political violence. This also when dueling was the thing. Where men of means were expected to shoot each other over words. If you did not, you was effectively over in that town. And the line between "duel worthy" offense and not could be very thin. > Eliminating free speech will harm the most vulnerable in society; not the most powerful. Moreover, we are not talking here about legal standard at all. Neither was legal standard EVER. You could legally seek to insult and offend people as much as you wanted. Nobody cared about intent. This is about when people say "you are jerk". There is threat to free speech, especially with new proposed laws, but it has zero to do with intent vs effect.

Gareth321 5y ago
>American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death. You would think we would learn from these examples and make offensive speech more acceptable, rather than less. I'm not sure how you conflated legality with social acceptance. My arguments center around the later.
mbg721 5y ago
I don't know that you can take dueling at face-value; dueling got to the point where you were expected to show up to the duel, but actually shooting someone dead was classless and would have made you a social pariah.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death. All within the scope you talk about. The time span you talk about include runup to civil war, civil war, reconstruction - all of which were full of political violence. Now do European history pre-enlightement. It was way, way worse. Shit talk the church and the inquisition slows up. Complain about the cut of your grain that the mill takes and the local lord threatens you lest other peasants start complaining. The acceptance of freedom of speech as a general principal has greatly increased the civility of civilization.