5 ms·

Free speech was never about consequent-free speech. The philosophers behind Free Speech even concluded that expression which harms individuals should be preven

Free speech was never about consequent-free speech. The philosophers behind Free Speech even concluded that expression which harms individuals should be prevented, aka harm principle: > That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Tommyrot and Poppycock! That is more or less the precise opposite reading of "The Harm Principle" that Mill intended. You're missing the nuance of what these words meant: > the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Mill then set out extremely limited definition of harm that excluded more or less all the incidental, implied and perceived harms that are problematic and open to abuse. In this (Mill's) context harm means harm, like as assault, robbery, imprisonment and so on. If ever you want to find the canonical example of a "slippery slope" it's the perpetual reinterpretation of this principle to move the goalposts and extend the definition of "harm". In many ways I think Mill did moral philsophy a disservice by so loosely stating something that, on face value, is so open to misinterpretation.
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  >That is more or less the precise opposite reading of "The Harm Principle" that Mill intended. JSM separated the Harm Principle from the Offense Principle, but still said that free speech should be curtailed when the expression harms individuals. Nowhere does JSM say freedom of speech is freedom from all consequences.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Is it just me or is: "freedom of speech is freedom from all consequences" a straw man that literally no philosopher or reasonable thinker ever said? Where does that even come from?
    - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
      From GP above: >"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Japan enacting harsher punishments for cyber bullying is not a slippery slope into free speech infarction, as the harm principle has always been part of the philosophy. GP's stance is based on an increasingly common misconception (these days in the U.S. at least) that free speech means freedom from consequence.
      - nonrandomstring 4y ago
        > increasingly common misconception (these days in the U.S. at least) I do dislike people who say "citation?" (and I don't wish to seem presumptuous) but can you give me any further links or prominent examples of that? Is it a social media thing? I don't use popular SM or trawl the sewers of chans any longer, so is it there? Is that representative of a wider society? Do people who hold the extreme view that "speech has no consequences" distinguish that idea from "speech can have have bad consequences, but that's better than the alternative of curbing free speech"? Or have we reached a kind of intellectual low point in places where these beliefs are purported to hold?
        minsc_and_boo 4y ago
        It sounds like you have an opinion but would rather sea lion. In the event that you are being genuine, there have been multitudes of instances. - Post jan 6 insurrection has left Republicans trying to justify their seditious invasion of the U.S. capital as protests protected by speech: https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/KF_Free_Expression_2022.pdf https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/KF_F... - The "Cancel culture" pejorative has created a double standard where a certain political party cries foul for being censored on private platforms (for violating TOS) and push for government regulation of said platforms to protect their political opinions. They are even trying to redefine private websites as the public square to do it. - Sacha Baron Cohen also sums it up nicely in his speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM If you really are genuine with your questions and asking for citations, you can google more topics about any of the above.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Tommyrot and Poppycock! That is more or less the precise opposite reading of "The Harm Principle" that Mill intended. You're missing the nuance of what these words meant: > the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Mill then set out extremely limited definition of harm that excluded more or less all the incidental, implied and perceived harms that are problematic and open to abuse. In this (Mill's) context harm means harm, like as assault, robbery, imprisonment and so on. If ever you want to find the canonical example of a "slippery slope" it's the perpetual reinterpretation of this principle to move the goalposts and extend the definition of "harm". In many ways I think Mill did moral philsophy a disservice by so loosely stating something that, on face value, is so open to misinterpretation.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
>That is more or less the precise opposite reading of "The Harm Principle" that Mill intended. JSM separated the Harm Principle from the Offense Principle, but still said that free speech should be curtailed when the expression harms individuals. Nowhere does JSM say freedom of speech is freedom from all consequences.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Is it just me or is: "freedom of speech is freedom from all consequences" a straw man that literally no philosopher or reasonable thinker ever said? Where does that even come from?
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    From GP above: >"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Japan enacting harsher punishments for cyber bullying is not a slippery slope into free speech infarction, as the harm principle has always been part of the philosophy. GP's stance is based on an increasingly common misconception (these days in the U.S. at least) that free speech means freedom from consequence.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      > increasingly common misconception (these days in the U.S. at least) I do dislike people who say "citation?" (and I don't wish to seem presumptuous) but can you give me any further links or prominent examples of that? Is it a social media thing? I don't use popular SM or trawl the sewers of chans any longer, so is it there? Is that representative of a wider society? Do people who hold the extreme view that "speech has no consequences" distinguish that idea from "speech can have have bad consequences, but that's better than the alternative of curbing free speech"? Or have we reached a kind of intellectual low point in places where these beliefs are purported to hold?
      - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
        It sounds like you have an opinion but would rather sea lion. In the event that you are being genuine, there have been multitudes of instances. - Post jan 6 insurrection has left Republicans trying to justify their seditious invasion of the U.S. capital as protests protected by speech: https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/KF_Free_Expression_2022.pdf https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/KF_F... - The "Cancel culture" pejorative has created a double standard where a certain political party cries foul for being censored on private platforms (for violating TOS) and push for government regulation of said platforms to protect their political opinions. They are even trying to redefine private websites as the public square to do it. - Sacha Baron Cohen also sums it up nicely in his speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM If you really are genuine with your questions and asking for citations, you can google more topics about any of the above.