4 ms·

We impose limitations on Free Speech for libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copy

We impose limitations on Free Speech for libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform. (This incomplete list scraped from Wikipedia). The means by which we decide these exceptions are by applying the principle of harm and the principle of offense, so named by John Stewart Mill. Specifically, we determine whether the speech actively causes, or is likely to cause, actual harm or whether it merely only has the capability to, but may not, cause harm. On one side proponents will suggest that 'trigger warning' discussions are merely offensive to those who may possibly but will not necessarily be harmed - they are offensive but not harmful and this then is not enough to limit it as speech. Furthermore ample forewarning can be given to limit the exposure of someone sensitive to what is going to be spoken and a choice can be made in advance by someone who is sensitive to possible trigger warnings to participate. On the other side, arguments can be made that (A.) exclusion from the debate based on the possible presence of trigger warnings legitimizes a paternalism because victims can not then show up to the debates (B.) the size of the class of potential victims and the scope of some discussions make it inevitable that harm will be done to someone or (C.) that the affects of open discussion on certain topics themselves have societal affects that cause harm as they institutionalize harmful norms (there are many examples from history). There are topics and scenarios that exist on the boundary between the principle of harm and the principle of offense. Good arguments can fit these issues squarely into one or the other.

angersock 12y ago
What is done and what is right are not identical sets. Most of those ways that we restrict free speech, for example, don't actually hurt anyone. The "fire in a crowded theater" is usually taken out of historical context, where it was being used for authoritarian purposes.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Most? It seems to me that there are a couple where it's arguable. I'm curious which ones you think don't cause harm to others and why it is you think they do not.
  - angersock 12y ago
    So, in case it isn't clear, I'm ardently for unconditional free speech--with the obvious observation that that is not easily practicable in our current society. Obscenity and pornography don't necessarily hurt anyone. Sedition laws are, by definition, used only to support the current ruling class and government. Most of the trade secrets, NDAs, etc. are just to help entrenched interests--something many here have rallied about when signing contracts. Public order, public security, and public nuisance are additional laws mainly used to censor and justify the persecution of people who are in disagreement with the establish government. Frankly, regulation of free speech has pretty much always favored the majority at the expense of the minority.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      The first thing I will note is that you didn't specify 'most' of the things on the list. I think that's okay, but I do want to suggest that perhaps you aren't ardently for free speech as many of the items in the list appear to make some sense to you. I'm of a similar mindset but don't hold such extreme views. Allow me to try to provide some justification for the items you listed. The types of pornography that are made illegal (here we are talking about America, you would get my agreement about recent laws passed in the UK) are snuff films - rape and child pornography or pornography that permanently disables or disfigures the subject - because they do necessarily hurt the subject. Once the pictures/videos are already taken, they continue to hurt the victims as their suffering is publicized and available to the fantasy of clients (and of course they won't see any proceeds), and this media will hurt future victims by institutionalizing a demand for new content. Limits on pornography (despite what religion institutions yell loudly about) are not about harm to customers but harm to subjects. With exceptions for torture, humiliation, dismemberment and execution (including the same to animals) I won't defend obscenity restrictions as the arguments are quite different than those for restricted forms of pornography. These listed exceptions of course are great examples of harm coming from obscene content and again are illegal (though lacking in the case of animals) under obscenity laws under the harm principle. Other forms of obscenity restrictions seem to me to fall directly in line with the offense principle and should not be restricted. Take for example the Supreme Court decision Miller v. California. The resulting 'Miller Test' for obscenity decisions: 1. Whether the average person would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to a lewd curiosity; 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Compare this test against Mill: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Obscenity, when it is victimless, and it is almost always victimless, clearly fails the harm principle test. For the most part, this is the case in America. There are cases where obscenity laws prevent things such as expressions of homosexual affection, for example, and it is harder to find clear victimhood in these cases even when the law agrees to prohibit them. A note that this Supreme Court decision was made by a conservative majority court. Regarding sedition I understand your point - that speech critical of the power elite ought to be protected in the strongest terms. I have a lot to say with regard to restrictions on sedition. I'll advocate for a devil for a blurb and then comment briefly in an attempt to sum up more than I can defend into a few sentences. With very few exceptions (the velvet revolution?), successful seditious overthrow of a ruling class and/or government have in almost every single case caused great harm both to the ruling class and to those who are caught adrift in the following power vacuum. Furthermore the ruling class/governance structure have to be convinced that alternatives to their administration is harmful. Other mechanisms for change are (supposed to be) available in Western democracies so that seditious change is not necessary, as the JFK quote "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." One additional item - I can't actually find (in America) a modern use of sedition laws, though I merely performed an internet search. Summing more than I can defend into a few sentences: presumably if a government were harming its citizens (the power elite abusing their position) this is a prior wrong and in alignment with the JFK quote violent revolution is inevitable. Presumably at the point where seditious speech is required for freedom from government by implication the government is unjust and its laws - those restricting seditious speech and otherwise - hold no justifiable weight. In short I agree with you very wholeheartedly regarding sedition. Because this is getting long, and because your analysis for the final items occupy a similar space - allow me to respond to them in tandem. You suggest in the final five (trade secrets, NDAs, public order, security and nuisance) that harm may in fact be done to specific individuals - those whose income relies on the keeping of certain secrets/formulas/processes, or those who occupy certain streets/neighborhoods/townships - but that additional harm can be done to other individuals (dissidents and political activists) by a state seeking to weaponize these laws and to abuse them. I would suggest here that the problem is not with the laws but with the abuse. Any law can be abused by the state to harass or detain critics. The worry here is that by targeting laws that protect the public security ("fire!") one would throw the baby out with the bath water.
LISPmasta 12y ago
Move to North Korea you fascist fucking nigger lover. Does your Dad fill out a permission slip for you when you go outside to smoke a cigarette?
scotty79 12y ago
> campaign finance reform WTF? Can we discuss capacities of out dear leader and our allmighty twoparty at least?
- hga 12y ago
  Citizens United was primarily about allowing leveraged discussions of such topics in the 1-2 months before Federal primary and general elections. A ban on core political speech, and since the primary season is so long, and the national conventions are just a bit more than 2 months prior to general elections.... Which is exactly why the incumbent establishment was incandescently upset that this decision stuck down part of the bipartisan McCain (Republican)-Feingold (Democrat) law. Key there is leveraged. That takes money and organization. Citizens United was about suppressing the distribution of a film during the 2008 Democratic primary season (as clarified during the oral arguments, this extended to books). The law went so far as to prevent sending non-partisan voter's guides such as the NRA's 60 days prior to general election; "low information voters" would not seem to be viewed as a great problem by our betters.
  - scotty79 12y ago
    Do you really can't talk campaign financing reform as if it was offensive content or call to violence?
    - hga 12y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you referring to how I've discussed "campaign financing reform" above?
chrismcb 12y ago
No one has a right not to be offended. And free speech isn't really free if it can't offend. It sounds like the argument for trigger warnings is that some people think they might be harmed by speech. That doesn't sound like a very good reason to try to limit free speech.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  > No one has a right not to be offended. And free speech isn't really free if it can't offend. Yes this is the principle of offense. > It sounds like the argument for trigger warnings is that some people think they might be harmed by speech. Yes this is the principle of harm. > That doesn't sound like a very good reason to try to limit free speech. All of our freedoms are granted up until the point where our actions would cause harm to others. At this point our freedoms are infringing on the freedoms of others, and their expressions become restricted. In this regard, speech is and has been no different from any other right - although it sounds like you have an argument for why speech should be allowed even when it causes harm to others? (Wikipedia on the harm principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle)

angersock 12y ago

What is done and what is right are not identical sets. Most of those ways that we restrict free speech, for example, don't actually hurt anyone. The "fire in a crowded theater" is usually taken out of historical context, where it was being used for authoritarian purposes.

xnull2guest 12y ago
Most? It seems to me that there are a couple where it's arguable. I'm curious which ones you think don't cause harm to others and why it is you think they do not.
- angersock 12y ago
  So, in case it isn't clear, I'm ardently for unconditional free speech--with the obvious observation that that is not easily practicable in our current society. Obscenity and pornography don't necessarily hurt anyone. Sedition laws are, by definition, used only to support the current ruling class and government. Most of the trade secrets, NDAs, etc. are just to help entrenched interests--something many here have rallied about when signing contracts. Public order, public security, and public nuisance are additional laws mainly used to censor and justify the persecution of people who are in disagreement with the establish government. Frankly, regulation of free speech has pretty much always favored the majority at the expense of the minority.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    The first thing I will note is that you didn't specify 'most' of the things on the list. I think that's okay, but I do want to suggest that perhaps you aren't ardently for free speech as many of the items in the list appear to make some sense to you. I'm of a similar mindset but don't hold such extreme views. Allow me to try to provide some justification for the items you listed. The types of pornography that are made illegal (here we are talking about America, you would get my agreement about recent laws passed in the UK) are snuff films - rape and child pornography or pornography that permanently disables or disfigures the subject - because they do necessarily hurt the subject. Once the pictures/videos are already taken, they continue to hurt the victims as their suffering is publicized and available to the fantasy of clients (and of course they won't see any proceeds), and this media will hurt future victims by institutionalizing a demand for new content. Limits on pornography (despite what religion institutions yell loudly about) are not about harm to customers but harm to subjects. With exceptions for torture, humiliation, dismemberment and execution (including the same to animals) I won't defend obscenity restrictions as the arguments are quite different than those for restricted forms of pornography. These listed exceptions of course are great examples of harm coming from obscene content and again are illegal (though lacking in the case of animals) under obscenity laws under the harm principle. Other forms of obscenity restrictions seem to me to fall directly in line with the offense principle and should not be restricted. Take for example the Supreme Court decision Miller v. California. The resulting 'Miller Test' for obscenity decisions: 1. Whether the average person would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to a lewd curiosity; 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Compare this test against Mill: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Obscenity, when it is victimless, and it is almost always victimless, clearly fails the harm principle test. For the most part, this is the case in America. There are cases where obscenity laws prevent things such as expressions of homosexual affection, for example, and it is harder to find clear victimhood in these cases even when the law agrees to prohibit them. A note that this Supreme Court decision was made by a conservative majority court. Regarding sedition I understand your point - that speech critical of the power elite ought to be protected in the strongest terms. I have a lot to say with regard to restrictions on sedition. I'll advocate for a devil for a blurb and then comment briefly in an attempt to sum up more than I can defend into a few sentences. With very few exceptions (the velvet revolution?), successful seditious overthrow of a ruling class and/or government have in almost every single case caused great harm both to the ruling class and to those who are caught adrift in the following power vacuum. Furthermore the ruling class/governance structure have to be convinced that alternatives to their administration is harmful. Other mechanisms for change are (supposed to be) available in Western democracies so that seditious change is not necessary, as the JFK quote "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." One additional item - I can't actually find (in America) a modern use of sedition laws, though I merely performed an internet search. Summing more than I can defend into a few sentences: presumably if a government were harming its citizens (the power elite abusing their position) this is a prior wrong and in alignment with the JFK quote violent revolution is inevitable. Presumably at the point where seditious speech is required for freedom from government by implication the government is unjust and its laws - those restricting seditious speech and otherwise - hold no justifiable weight. In short I agree with you very wholeheartedly regarding sedition. Because this is getting long, and because your analysis for the final items occupy a similar space - allow me to respond to them in tandem. You suggest in the final five (trade secrets, NDAs, public order, security and nuisance) that harm may in fact be done to specific individuals - those whose income relies on the keeping of certain secrets/formulas/processes, or those who occupy certain streets/neighborhoods/townships - but that additional harm can be done to other individuals (dissidents and political activists) by a state seeking to weaponize these laws and to abuse them. I would suggest here that the problem is not with the laws but with the abuse. Any law can be abused by the state to harass or detain critics. The worry here is that by targeting laws that protect the public security ("fire!") one would throw the baby out with the bath water.

LISPmasta 12y ago

Move to North Korea you fascist fucking nigger lover. Does your Dad fill out a permission slip for you when you go outside to smoke a cigarette?

scotty79 12y ago

> campaign finance reform WTF? Can we discuss capacities of out dear leader and our allmighty twoparty at least?

hga 12y ago
Citizens United was primarily about allowing leveraged discussions of such topics in the 1-2 months before Federal primary and general elections. A ban on core political speech, and since the primary season is so long, and the national conventions are just a bit more than 2 months prior to general elections.... Which is exactly why the incumbent establishment was incandescently upset that this decision stuck down part of the bipartisan McCain (Republican)-Feingold (Democrat) law. Key there is leveraged. That takes money and organization. Citizens United was about suppressing the distribution of a film during the 2008 Democratic primary season (as clarified during the oral arguments, this extended to books). The law went so far as to prevent sending non-partisan voter's guides such as the NRA's 60 days prior to general election; "low information voters" would not seem to be viewed as a great problem by our betters.
- scotty79 12y ago
  Do you really can't talk campaign financing reform as if it was offensive content or call to violence?
  - hga 12y ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you referring to how I've discussed "campaign financing reform" above?

chrismcb 12y ago

No one has a right not to be offended. And free speech isn't really free if it can't offend. It sounds like the argument for trigger warnings is that some people think they might be harmed by speech. That doesn't sound like a very good reason to try to limit free speech.

xnull2guest 12y ago
> No one has a right not to be offended. And free speech isn't really free if it can't offend. Yes this is the principle of offense. > It sounds like the argument for trigger warnings is that some people think they might be harmed by speech. Yes this is the principle of harm. > That doesn't sound like a very good reason to try to limit free speech. All of our freedoms are granted up until the point where our actions would cause harm to others. At this point our freedoms are infringing on the freedoms of others, and their expressions become restricted. In this regard, speech is and has been no different from any other right - although it sounds like you have an argument for why speech should be allowed even when it causes harm to others? (Wikipedia on the harm principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle)