8 ms·

I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence. I would argue that just the threat of physical violenc

I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence. I would argue that just the threat of physical violence changes the expected value of the future and hence can force someone to alter their behavior. I think this is one of the few cases where "your freedom stops where the freedom of the other begins" actually applies. I would be interested if you would also argue against prohibiting this kind of speech

bentley 4y ago
Under US law, the standard (established in Brandenburg v. Ohio) is whether the speech is likely to result in imminent lawless action.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  This is because US law was not written by free speech absolutists.
  - 2devnull 4y ago
    It’s a legal decision. The case they decided on was not, “should free speech absolutism be protected by law?” The case was about what sort of speech is a type of criminal conduct. A scammer is breaking the law if he lies to you in committing a fraud. That does not mean he doesn’t have free speech. This isn’t difficult to understand for most people who aren’t being contentious in bad faith.
    - fsckboy 4y ago
      > The case was about what sort of speech is a type of criminal conduct. the case was decided by the state on basis of "what sort of speech threatens the laws created by the state" I'm pointing out the difference because science requires questioning, and free speech allows it, but the state and the mob may prefer you to not question state mandates on, oh let's say for example, covid's origins or the hastily prepared novel vaccines or whimsical ever changing masking policies and any measures of their effectiveness
MrLeap 4y ago
Banning the speech doesn't prevent the violence. Frankly I'd prefer the verbal warning to the surprise attack. I also don't like the idea of receiving multi-part prose shouted at me from the sidewalk on what someone is going to do with my entrails if they have no intention of actually trying to follow through. I can't imagine a perfect rule regime, personally. Humans are slippery when it comes to being jerks.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  > Banning the speech doesn't prevent the violence. Speech is cheap. The scenario I am imagining is someone calling you and telling you they are going to kill you and your family. Thanks for the "verbal warning".
- jimbokun 4y ago
  It could if action is taken against the person making the threat before they can carry it out.
ptero 4y ago
Not the person you asked, but I would not prohibit even that. It's not that I like this, but I do not see any way to prohibit the hate speech in a way that is practical and will not be broadened and misused. We should stop and punish actions, but the state should not punish the speech. My 2c.
- skeeter2020 4y ago
  Too often the speech compels the action though. If you can prevent the action in the first place maybe the loss of freedom is warranted? I don't think there's an easy answer, but I don't have to follow the thought exercise too far from purely theoretical before absolute free speech falls apart.
  - ptero 4y ago
    I agree that there is no easy answer; certainly my proposal is not perfect. But almost any action is compelled by speech. I think allowing the state to control the speech to guide actions always leads to misuse. My 2c.
- judge2020 4y ago
  So if someone quite literally takes a picture of themselves holding a gun and sends it to someone with the message that they are going to kill them at a specific time, how is that not something that should be banned? What if it's a group of people? The negative emotions (read: human suffering) caused by other humans' words is real, and when the suffering is something society understands to be a natural and common reaction, why should society not curtail that speech?
  - lovingCranberry 4y ago
    I was tempted to make a finger gun at this post and take a photo to show how ridiculous this is, but I'm afraid to (deservedly) get hammered by dang for this.
- cm2187 4y ago
  I kind of agree but you can't be absolutist either. If a mob boss says "kill this guy" to one of his hitmen, and the guy kills him. Only the hitman goes to jail? The mob boss just used his freedom of speech but didn't act?
tomp 4y ago
Surely a verbal threat of violence is better than just violence? Like, if I want to kill you, surely it’s better that I tell you, than if I just do it without warning? The expected value of the former is strictly better.
- JoBrad 4y ago
  Verbal violence shuts down conversation, allowing the aggressor to dominate the conversation.
- brazzy 4y ago
  It's not either or, you get both. Violence often follows threats, and if threats are allowed you can force people to do whatever you want and just have to remind them of a few cases where actual violence was done.
blindriver 4y ago
Sorry you're right, I missed that (I spent all of 5 mins typing up my comment). I wasn't considering all those cases like threats, inciting riots, etc. Those are already crimes and I agree with that. What I meant was regular speech.
- judge2020 4y ago
  This, by definition, means you're not a free speech absolutist. Everyone draws the line somewhere and the current collective is that existing laws are mostly good enough, with some movements to curtail things like bullying and online hate speech (although something like requiring platforms to review every comment / beam everything to the government would not be healthy for giving society)
  - 2devnull 4y ago
    No, it’s a matter of supporting free speech that doesn’t violate existing laws.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      Could you defend why? A law that punishes or throws you in jail for speech is a restriction on free speech, regardless of how long ago some congress voted on it.
      - 2devnull 4y ago
        Yes, the issue is free speech. That right doesn’t give you the right to commit crimes like fraud. Nobody who self describes or is described as a free speech absolutist believes in decriminalizing fraud, sedition, perjury, etc. It means, as it’s colloquially used, someone who doesn’t believe in restricting speech in absence of one of those crimes. Our forefathers arguably fall into that group. It is literally the #1 amendment. They were Protestants. This was a, perhaps thee, defining issue for America.
        4y ago
super256 4y ago
> I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence. I would not ban that either. However, if you decide to make a serious threat, which takes a significant amount of energy, like doxxing and calling me on my phone to tell me you will kill me, you will have to live with the consequences of the legal system. If you just tell me in HN comments that you will kill me and my family, I would certainly not give a damn because that's low effort.
- Loocid 4y ago
  >you will have to live with the consequences of the legal system. Doesn't that mean that type of speech is forbidden?
  - jdbernard 4y ago
    There is a difference, I think, between consequences resulting from your actions and being prevented from taking those actions at all. With regard to speech it's not a clear line, certainly, but the distinction matters, I think.
- psychlops 4y ago
  Then how are you differentiating banning from consequences of the legal system?
- thfuran 4y ago
  In a context where "not banned" speech can be illegal, what does banning speech even mean?
Georgelemental 4y ago
My thinking is, promising something about your actions is itself an action that goes beyond mere speech. So threats of violence can be regulated, and so can contracts, product labeling, and so on.
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence. The thing being prohibited there isn't the speech. Prohibiting threats is really prohibiting coercion. The words of the threat are the evidence of the coercion, not the crime itself. That's why the threat has to be credible. It's not a crime to say threatening things as an actor in a play because you're not actually threatening anyone even though the communicative aspect is the same.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence Not accusing you of doing this but... censorship is always justified through these sorts of extreme examples, but quickly devolves into banning, say, anybody who suggests that Covid originated in a lab in Wuhan. That's what makes me a free speech absolutist - if I had ever seen any evidence that actual "bad" speech (which I'm not 100% convinced includes threats of physical violence, but I can agree that such a thing could exist) could be banned without the mechanism being almost immediately abused by people with agendas.

bentley 4y ago

Under US law, the standard (established in Brandenburg v. Ohio) is whether the speech is likely to result in imminent lawless action.

bee_rider 4y ago
This is because US law was not written by free speech absolutists.
- 2devnull 4y ago
  It’s a legal decision. The case they decided on was not, “should free speech absolutism be protected by law?” The case was about what sort of speech is a type of criminal conduct. A scammer is breaking the law if he lies to you in committing a fraud. That does not mean he doesn’t have free speech. This isn’t difficult to understand for most people who aren’t being contentious in bad faith.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    > The case was about what sort of speech is a type of criminal conduct. the case was decided by the state on basis of "what sort of speech threatens the laws created by the state" I'm pointing out the difference because science requires questioning, and free speech allows it, but the state and the mob may prefer you to not question state mandates on, oh let's say for example, covid's origins or the hastily prepared novel vaccines or whimsical ever changing masking policies and any measures of their effectiveness

MrLeap 4y ago

Banning the speech doesn't prevent the violence. Frankly I'd prefer the verbal warning to the surprise attack. I also don't like the idea of receiving multi-part prose shouted at me from the sidewalk on what someone is going to do with my entrails if they have no intention of actually trying to follow through. I can't imagine a perfect rule regime, personally. Humans are slippery when it comes to being jerks.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
> Banning the speech doesn't prevent the violence. Speech is cheap. The scenario I am imagining is someone calling you and telling you they are going to kill you and your family. Thanks for the "verbal warning".
jimbokun 4y ago
It could if action is taken against the person making the threat before they can carry it out.

ptero 4y ago

Not the person you asked, but I would not prohibit even that. It's not that I like this, but I do not see any way to prohibit the hate speech in a way that is practical and will not be broadened and misused. We should stop and punish actions, but the state should not punish the speech. My 2c.

skeeter2020 4y ago
Too often the speech compels the action though. If you can prevent the action in the first place maybe the loss of freedom is warranted? I don't think there's an easy answer, but I don't have to follow the thought exercise too far from purely theoretical before absolute free speech falls apart.
- ptero 4y ago
  I agree that there is no easy answer; certainly my proposal is not perfect. But almost any action is compelled by speech. I think allowing the state to control the speech to guide actions always leads to misuse. My 2c.
judge2020 4y ago
So if someone quite literally takes a picture of themselves holding a gun and sends it to someone with the message that they are going to kill them at a specific time, how is that not something that should be banned? What if it's a group of people? The negative emotions (read: human suffering) caused by other humans' words is real, and when the suffering is something society understands to be a natural and common reaction, why should society not curtail that speech?
- lovingCranberry 4y ago
  I was tempted to make a finger gun at this post and take a photo to show how ridiculous this is, but I'm afraid to (deservedly) get hammered by dang for this.
cm2187 4y ago
I kind of agree but you can't be absolutist either. If a mob boss says "kill this guy" to one of his hitmen, and the guy kills him. Only the hitman goes to jail? The mob boss just used his freedom of speech but didn't act?

tomp 4y ago

Surely a verbal threat of violence is better than just violence? Like, if I want to kill you, surely it’s better that I tell you, than if I just do it without warning? The expected value of the former is strictly better.

JoBrad 4y ago
Verbal violence shuts down conversation, allowing the aggressor to dominate the conversation.
brazzy 4y ago
It's not either or, you get both. Violence often follows threats, and if threats are allowed you can force people to do whatever you want and just have to remind them of a few cases where actual violence was done.

blindriver 4y ago

Sorry you're right, I missed that (I spent all of 5 mins typing up my comment). I wasn't considering all those cases like threats, inciting riots, etc. Those are already crimes and I agree with that. What I meant was regular speech.

judge2020 4y ago
This, by definition, means you're not a free speech absolutist. Everyone draws the line somewhere and the current collective is that existing laws are mostly good enough, with some movements to curtail things like bullying and online hate speech (although something like requiring platforms to review every comment / beam everything to the government would not be healthy for giving society)
- 2devnull 4y ago
  No, it’s a matter of supporting free speech that doesn’t violate existing laws.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Could you defend why? A law that punishes or throws you in jail for speech is a restriction on free speech, regardless of how long ago some congress voted on it.
    - 2devnull 4y ago
      Yes, the issue is free speech. That right doesn’t give you the right to commit crimes like fraud. Nobody who self describes or is described as a free speech absolutist believes in decriminalizing fraud, sedition, perjury, etc. It means, as it’s colloquially used, someone who doesn’t believe in restricting speech in absence of one of those crimes. Our forefathers arguably fall into that group. It is literally the #1 amendment. They were Protestants. This was a, perhaps thee, defining issue for America.
      - 4y ago

super256 4y ago

> I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence. I would not ban that either. However, if you decide to make a serious threat, which takes a significant amount of energy, like doxxing and calling me on my phone to tell me you will kill me, you will have to live with the consequences of the legal system. If you just tell me in HN comments that you will kill me and my family, I would certainly not give a damn because that's low effort.

Loocid 4y ago
>you will have to live with the consequences of the legal system. Doesn't that mean that type of speech is forbidden?
- jdbernard 4y ago
  There is a difference, I think, between consequences resulting from your actions and being prevented from taking those actions at all. With regard to speech it's not a clear line, certainly, but the distinction matters, I think.
psychlops 4y ago
Then how are you differentiating banning from consequences of the legal system?
thfuran 4y ago
In a context where "not banned" speech can be illegal, what does banning speech even mean?

Georgelemental 4y ago

My thinking is, promising something about your actions is itself an action that goes beyond mere speech. So threats of violence can be regulated, and so can contracts, product labeling, and so on.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

> But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence. The thing being prohibited there isn't the speech. Prohibiting threats is really prohibiting coercion. The words of the threat are the evidence of the coercion, not the crime itself. That's why the threat has to be credible. It's not a crime to say threatening things as an actor in a play because you're not actually threatening anyone even though the communicative aspect is the same.

commandlinefan 4y ago

> speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence Not accusing you of doing this but... censorship is always justified through these sorts of extreme examples, but quickly devolves into banning, say, anybody who suggests that Covid originated in a lab in Wuhan. That's what makes me a free speech absolutist - if I had ever seen any evidence that actual "bad" speech (which I'm not 100% convinced includes threats of physical violence, but I can agree that such a thing could exist) could be banned without the mechanism being almost immediately abused by people with agendas.