7 ms·

No. But it stops at disallowing groups who incite real violence instead of „hurtful language“.

by selfmodruntime 4y ago

hotpotamus 4y ago
[flagged]
- selfmodruntime 4y ago
  > How can we know the difference between speech that incites real violence and mere hurtful language Easy. Speech that is hurtful aims at portraying someone as lesser compared to other people, speech that incites actual violence tells you to do something about it. Me disagreeing with gay marriage (I would never, but let’s entertain that notion) is very different from me saying we need to forcibly imprison homosexuals as criminals.
- unityByFreedom 4y ago
  Case by case. Generally, if they commit to no violence then they should be supported, even protected by police. Uncomfortable conversations should be allowed to happen.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  For speech to be illegal, the legal standard is that it needs to incite specific lawless action and be likely to succeed. For instance, Indiana locked up an anti-war protestor: >The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In addition, Hess' speech was not directed at any particular person or group. As a result, "it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    In Supreme Court terms, 1973 is eons ago - there has been a consistent and very fruitful effort to change its thinking on a range of subjects since then, and as a result, I no longer really understand much of their previous rulings as having much relevance today.
    - naasking 4y ago
      You asked about drawing a line between speech and violence, not whether the supreme court's ruling is legally relevant today. The only relevant question is whether the argument the OP described clarifies your confusion on where and how to draw that line, ethically, not legally.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        Ethically speaking, I think there are all sorts of things that just shouldn't be said, regardless of legality. I'm not sure if my personal sense of ethics is relevant though?
        naasking 4y ago
        Firstly, "things that shouldn't be said" include matters of etiquette and not just ethics, so just be clear about the line between being a good/ethical person vs. being a polite person. Secondly, your personal ethics are absolutely relevant because ethics advances by persuasion in rational debate. Everyone's views on such matters are relevant, if not persuasive.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        Well, personally, if I attended or worked at MIT, I would not want Nazis on campus and would accept banning them.
        naasking 4y ago
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Not just inciting violence, but a credible and immediate incitement to violence. "Hurtful" describes a feeling felt by the listener. Would people have felt hurt by someone opposing racial preferences in admissions [1]? Maybe: their feelings are their own, and I'm not going to tell someone their feelings are wrong. But it's unambiguously not a credible and specific incitement to violence. The questions to ask are: is the speech calling for an immediate act of violence [2]? And is the speech calling for violence against a specific identifiable person or group? 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html 2. Sometimes people will try to argue for an indirect threat of violence. E.g. that opposing trans men in female sports amounts to a call of violence because it reduces respect for trans people, which in turn increases likelihood of violence perpetrated against them. But this is a very indirect relationship. As a general rule of thumb, if someone is making a claim that some speech is probabilistically increasing violence, it's not a incitement to violence.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Are there examples of such speech, incitement to violence, that you see as appropriately prosecuted? On a side note, since it seems to be the question of our era, what do you think the appropriate sports league for trans men would look like?
    - selfmodruntime 4y ago
      > Are there examples of such speech, incitement to violence, that you see as appropriately prosecuted? Yes, but Americans often don’t like them very much. In Germany, we routinely punish people for wanting to forcibly overthrow our government.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      I don't know of any off the top of my head, but you can dig into the case history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action What I think is going to inevitably happen in sports is that the gender segregated (but not sex segregated) women's leagues will become dominated by trans women, and cis women will leave and form their own female-only league.

No. But it stops at disallowing groups who incite real violence instead of „hurtful language“.

hotpotamus 4y ago

[flagged]

selfmodruntime 4y ago
> How can we know the difference between speech that incites real violence and mere hurtful language Easy. Speech that is hurtful aims at portraying someone as lesser compared to other people, speech that incites actual violence tells you to do something about it. Me disagreeing with gay marriage (I would never, but let’s entertain that notion) is very different from me saying we need to forcibly imprison homosexuals as criminals.
unityByFreedom 4y ago
Case by case. Generally, if they commit to no violence then they should be supported, even protected by police. Uncomfortable conversations should be allowed to happen.
GeekyBear 4y ago
For speech to be illegal, the legal standard is that it needs to incite specific lawless action and be likely to succeed. For instance, Indiana locked up an anti-war protestor: >The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In addition, Hess' speech was not directed at any particular person or group. As a result, "it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  In Supreme Court terms, 1973 is eons ago - there has been a consistent and very fruitful effort to change its thinking on a range of subjects since then, and as a result, I no longer really understand much of their previous rulings as having much relevance today.
  - naasking 4y ago
    You asked about drawing a line between speech and violence, not whether the supreme court's ruling is legally relevant today. The only relevant question is whether the argument the OP described clarifies your confusion on where and how to draw that line, ethically, not legally.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      Ethically speaking, I think there are all sorts of things that just shouldn't be said, regardless of legality. I'm not sure if my personal sense of ethics is relevant though?
      - naasking 4y ago
        Firstly, "things that shouldn't be said" include matters of etiquette and not just ethics, so just be clear about the line between being a good/ethical person vs. being a polite person. Secondly, your personal ethics are absolutely relevant because ethics advances by persuasion in rational debate. Everyone's views on such matters are relevant, if not persuasive.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        Well, personally, if I attended or worked at MIT, I would not want Nazis on campus and would accept banning them.
        naasking 4y ago
Manuel_D 4y ago
Not just inciting violence, but a credible and immediate incitement to violence. "Hurtful" describes a feeling felt by the listener. Would people have felt hurt by someone opposing racial preferences in admissions [1]? Maybe: their feelings are their own, and I'm not going to tell someone their feelings are wrong. But it's unambiguously not a credible and specific incitement to violence. The questions to ask are: is the speech calling for an immediate act of violence [2]? And is the speech calling for violence against a specific identifiable person or group? 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html 2. Sometimes people will try to argue for an indirect threat of violence. E.g. that opposing trans men in female sports amounts to a call of violence because it reduces respect for trans people, which in turn increases likelihood of violence perpetrated against them. But this is a very indirect relationship. As a general rule of thumb, if someone is making a claim that some speech is probabilistically increasing violence, it's not a incitement to violence.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Are there examples of such speech, incitement to violence, that you see as appropriately prosecuted? On a side note, since it seems to be the question of our era, what do you think the appropriate sports league for trans men would look like?
  - selfmodruntime 4y ago
    > Are there examples of such speech, incitement to violence, that you see as appropriately prosecuted? Yes, but Americans often don’t like them very much. In Germany, we routinely punish people for wanting to forcibly overthrow our government.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    I don't know of any off the top of my head, but you can dig into the case history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action What I think is going to inevitably happen in sports is that the gender segregated (but not sex segregated) women's leagues will become dominated by trans women, and cis women will leave and form their own female-only league.