3 ms·

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 w

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
        > It sounds like you have an opinion but would rather sea lion. I had to look this up. That's a pretty sad accusation off the bat isn't it? One of my opinions I'll share is that I think even HN, supposedly one of the better discussion forums - why I write things here - is also blighted by "toxic internet culture" of assuming the worst in everybody. Also I think the "move fast" design is deliberately not conducive to conversation, so I am wondering if you will see this response. From a British perspective I think the rioters attempting a coup and then backtracking to calling it "a protest" is laughable. At least one should have the courage of ones convictions. If you're going to try a coup you damn well better know it's going to succeed - as the alternative in every other historical example is getting lined up against the wall. If what you say is true then saying "oops only joking... it was just a fun legitimate protest" makes them cowards. So I simply can't entertain an argument that anyone defending a failed coup as "free speech" is serious. Mr Cohen has a lot of good things to say, and I think I get what you're talking about after watching the clip you linked, thank you. > "the age of evidential argument is ending and knowledge is de-legitimised.... by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history." Couldn't have put it better myself. Pleased that he cited what is the subject of a chapter in my book Digital Vegan; the role of Facebook in Myanmar - which sadly few people will touch. How SBC actually puts it is "freedom of speech is not freedom of reach" - a nice turn. But then he flounders a little, not coming right out against Zuckerberg's "bullshit" reasoning as a purely driven by greed, he softens it as the "ideological imperialism" of the 'Silicon Six'. Cohen being accused of anti-Semitism isn't something I'd imagine can't happen these days either. But in the end, SBC's beef seems to be with the unelected power of BigTech, and unfortunately he isn't a great philosophical scholar, by his own introductory remarks. What is to be done? He doesn't seem to know how to frame those who disingenuously deploy good arguments for bad ends... which is what I think the nub of your "lots of people equate freedom of speech with freedom from consequences" line. Zuckerberg couldn't give a fuck, and Cohen is correct in calling him a "bullshitter" in the strictest sense of Harry Frankfurt's definition. But to suggest that FB or any other company could "purge lies and conspiracies from their platform" is naive. There wouldn't be much left, especially of politicians and business people have to say - and when he hits that Cohen turns it into a damn joke to soften it! That's why comedians can say certain things that other's can't... up to a point. And then they risk losing their platform. So, much as I love Sascha Baron-Cohen he drifts into waters out of his depth. That said, I'm 99% with him (not afraid to be out of my depth).

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
        > It sounds like you have an opinion but would rather sea lion. I had to look this up. That's a pretty sad accusation off the bat isn't it? One of my opinions I'll share is that I think even HN, supposedly one of the better discussion forums - why I write things here - is also blighted by "toxic internet culture" of assuming the worst in everybody. Also I think the "move fast" design is deliberately not conducive to conversation, so I am wondering if you will see this response. From a British perspective I think the rioters attempting a coup and then backtracking to calling it "a protest" is laughable. At least one should have the courage of ones convictions. If you're going to try a coup you damn well better know it's going to succeed - as the alternative in every other historical example is getting lined up against the wall. If what you say is true then saying "oops only joking... it was just a fun legitimate protest" makes them cowards. So I simply can't entertain an argument that anyone defending a failed coup as "free speech" is serious. Mr Cohen has a lot of good things to say, and I think I get what you're talking about after watching the clip you linked, thank you. > "the age of evidential argument is ending and knowledge is de-legitimised.... by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history." Couldn't have put it better myself. Pleased that he cited what is the subject of a chapter in my book Digital Vegan; the role of Facebook in Myanmar - which sadly few people will touch. How SBC actually puts it is "freedom of speech is not freedom of reach" - a nice turn. But then he flounders a little, not coming right out against Zuckerberg's "bullshit" reasoning as a purely driven by greed, he softens it as the "ideological imperialism" of the 'Silicon Six'. Cohen being accused of anti-Semitism isn't something I'd imagine can't happen these days either. But in the end, SBC's beef seems to be with the unelected power of BigTech, and unfortunately he isn't a great philosophical scholar, by his own introductory remarks. What is to be done? He doesn't seem to know how to frame those who disingenuously deploy good arguments for bad ends... which is what I think the nub of your "lots of people equate freedom of speech with freedom from consequences" line. Zuckerberg couldn't give a fuck, and Cohen is correct in calling him a "bullshitter" in the strictest sense of Harry Frankfurt's definition. But to suggest that FB or any other company could "purge lies and conspiracies from their platform" is naive. There wouldn't be much left, especially of politicians and business people have to say - and when he hits that Cohen turns it into a damn joke to soften it! That's why comedians can say certain things that other's can't... up to a point. And then they risk losing their platform. So, much as I love Sascha Baron-Cohen he drifts into waters out of his depth. That said, I'm 99% with him (not afraid to be out of my depth).