Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pnx]

By passing laws that disallow people from repeatedly contacting someone after they've made it clear they don't want contact?

That is called a restraining order, and curtails disallowing people from contacting the affected persons. It does not allow you to staple someone's mouth shut and break their fingers.

I don't understand, 20 minutes ago you were saying that restricting someone's speech based on how someone reacts to it is madness, but now you're saying that's ok as long as it's in the form of a restraining order?

EDIT: Now if you want to live in a world where people are allowed to do such things, I suppose that's what you want, but you might have to accept that most of the rest of us really don't.

Yeah sure. I like how making saying bad [subjective judgements of course] things illegal stops people from being dicks.

We both live in the same world.

I don't understand what your point here is either. In fact it seems only very loosely connected to what I was actually saying.

[scriver]

"Freedom of Speech" is and was always about being able to criticize powerful institutions and organisations. It was never supposed to allow anyone to say whatever they want about or to whoever they want without consequences. Hence threats, harrasment, grave insults to someone's reputation and name, and so on are illegal. That any of those should be covered by "free speech" is just ridiculously out of this world. It's like saying the Swedish All Man's Right gives me right to reap other people's cornfields or plunder your fridge. It's nowhere near the intent of the concept.

Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.

When applied to speech this is madness. How can you outlaw speech based on emotional reaction?!

Every single law is based on emotions. Why shouldn't this one be?

[Loud Whispers]

I don't understand, 20 minutes ago you were saying that restricting someone's speech based on how someone reacts to it is madness, but now you're saying that's ok as long as it's in the form of a restraining order?

No. I stand by my statement that forcibly policing that there are things that cannot be said like whatever you can call intimidating is madness. People don't realize that when expressing yourself to others, one fundamental requirement is that whoever you are addressing has to have consented to listening. Hence why the same thing could be said to two people, and one could find it harassment while the other finds it ok.
If the offended felt so damaged it could be proved in a courtroom, then the speaker would simply be legally obliged to not say whatever statement to that person and yet their right to say that statement would still be preserved.

"Freedom of Speech" is and was always about being able to criticize powerful institutions and organisations. It was never supposed to allow anyone to say whatever they want about or to whoever they want without consequences. Hence threats, harrasment, grave insults to someone's reputation and name, and so on are illegal. That any of those should be covered by "free speech" is just ridiculously out of this world. It's like saying the Swedish All Man's Right gives me right to reap other people's cornfields or plunder your fridge. It's nowhere near the intent of the concept.

No, freedom of expression has only been about one purpose: The exchange of ideas. It is ingrained in the purpose of language. Threats, harassment, insults to reputation and all should be legal. Because the freedom of expression transcends everything that is morally accepted by any given society, what would be a harmless cartoon to one society could be the gravest of insults to another - that is its purpose, to allow people to hold their own opinions without interference from others.
Should we next make violent verbs illegal? Euphemisms too? Implications?

Every single law is based on emotions. Why shouldn't this one be?

No, law shouldn't be based on opinion and you'd be hard pressed to prove how many laws were built on caprice. Politics maybe, but fewer just laws.
Moods, passions and emotions are subject to massive and frequent fluctuations; basing the laws of your society on these impermanent feelings as opposed to objective virtues is a good way of creating rifts and unequal society in short time.
Least of all the restricting of speech - the sole way we communicate with others, the system on which we build all other laws, intentions and meanings.

*Edit
Fixed typo.

[Pnx]

So if I'm understanding correctly, you basically feel that people should be able to say whatever they want to say so long as the person they're saying it to actually wants to hear it?

I suppose I can understand that...

Also what the heck is an objective virtue?

[Loud Whispers]

So if I'm understanding correctly, you basically feel that people should be able to say whatever they want to say so long as the person they're saying it to actually wants to hear it?

Correct. In addition, if they address no one, they are also free to express any of their ideas in any medium to preserve the arts.

Also what the heck is an objective virtue?

A high moral or desired quality in society whose rightness is independent of emotion.

[Pnx]

But isn't "rightness" essentially an emotional reaction to something? You "feel" something is "right" therefore it is virtuous?

[scriver]

People don't realize that when expressing yourself to others, one fundamental requirement is that whoever you are addressing has to have consented to listening.

No. Just no. The real world is not like the internet where you can close your browser and walk away from whatever flaming people threw at you. You can't walk away from people threatening to kill your family. You can't choose not to hear insults and harassment. If somebody spreads lies about you it will affect your reputation an thus chances for the rest of your life. Actual actions have actual consequences for people, and we shouldn't allow actions which only serve to hurt others.

No, freedom of expression has only been about one purpose: The exchange of ideas. It is ingrained in the purpose of language. Threats, harassment, insults to reputation and all should be legal. Because the freedom of expression transcends everything that is morally accepted by any given society, what would be a harmless cartoon to one society could be the gravest of insults to another - that is its purpose, to allow people to hold their own opinions without interference from others. Should we next make violent verbs illegal? Euphemisms too? Implications?

I can't do anything but facepalm at this. It's nonsense. Just straight nonsense and empty words you think sound good but that has no connection whatsoever to the real world or the history of our societies and civil rights.

No, law shouldn't be based on opinion and you'd be hard pressed to prove how many laws were built on caprice. Politics maybe, but fewer just laws. Moods, passions and emotions are subject to massive and frequent fluctuations; basing the laws of your society on these impermanent feelings as opposed to objective virtues is a good way of creating rifts and unequal society in short time. Least of all the restricting of speech - the sole way we communicate with others, the system on which we build all other laws, intentions and meanings.

Being based on feelings does not mean it is based on whims. And yes, we are feeling animals, and everything we do are driven by emotions, all opinions, all likes and dislike, all our sense of justice and injustice. We can't not act on emotion - even if you make an effort to not do it that whole action would stem from your feelings that it is better. There is no such thing as "objective virtues" - things are only as virtuous as we feel they are. If you think what you feel are virtues are objective truth, then your just blind to how the world works. Which wouldn't be surprising, because not understanding and/or having any experience with the real world is something I find to come up in your posts on a very frequent basis.

[Frumple]

But isn't "rightness" essentially an emotional reaction to something? You "feel" something is "right" therefore it is virtuous?

Ehn. Sorta', but not exactly. S'more in line with something that adheres to the system in question's axiomatic base.

'Course, axioms themselves are ultimately established based on aesthetic preferences and could be considered being chosen based on feeling from that direction... but that's getting hella' meta.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you basically feel that people should be able to say whatever they want to say so long as the person they're saying it to actually wants to hear it?

Correct. In addition, if they address no one, they are also free to express any of their ideas in any medium to preserve the arts.

And if the person they're addressing doesn't want to hear it? Then it's acceptable to curtail free speech, in that specific instance?

[Loud Whispers]

But isn't "rightness" essentially an emotional reaction to something? You "feel" something is "right" therefore it is virtuous?

No. I'm going to use an idol of mine as an example, Harold Wilson was the British PM for a while and during this time liberalized censorship laws, abortion laws, abolished capital punishment and the criminality of homosexuality and also prevented British soldiers from going to Vietnam - against public and international opinion.
In doing so he upheld tenets of human liberty that are constant to all societies, that guarantee freedom, equal opportunity and dignified living, despite what he was doing being morally wrong by societal standards.
The fairness and rightness of such objective moral actions are based on fundamental natures of reality and the nature of mankind. But while the individual and specific moral codes are often subject to change; things like economic systems and the distribution of power, the core objective virtues which allow us to change and build these extra virtues in the first place must be protected, even if all are against them.

You are kidding, right?

No, it actually happened. They were searching for a suspected domestic terrorist.

No. Just no. The real world is not like the internet where you can close your browser and walk away from whatever flaming people threw at you. You can't walk away from people threatening to kill your family. You can't choose not to hear insults and harassment. If somebody spreads lies about you it will affect your reputation an thus chances for the rest of your life. Actual actions have actual consequences for people, and we shouldn't allow actions which only serve to hurt others.

By passing laws that disallow people from repeatedly contacting someone after they've made it clear they don't want contact?

That is called a restraining order, and curtails disallowing people from contacting the affected persons. It does not allow you to staple someone's mouth shut and break their fingers.

Another fundamental human right is equality, so employers cannot refuse to employ you on grounds of prejudice like rumours.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

No, freedom of expression has only been about one purpose: The exchange of ideas. It is ingrained in the purpose of language. Threats, harassment, insults to reputation and all should be legal. Because the freedom of expression transcends everything that is morally accepted by any given society, what would be a harmless cartoon to one society could be the gravest of insults to another - that is its purpose, to allow people to hold their own opinions without interference from others. Should we next make violent verbs illegal? Euphemisms too? Implications?

I can't do anything but facepalm at this. It's nonsense. Just straight nonsense and empty words you think sound good but that has no connection whatsoever to the real world or the history of our societies and civil rights.

Civil rights [are supposed to] guarantee your political, societal freedom and your access to equality. Fundamental human rights like the freedom of expression guarantee your mental freedom to convey yourself.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

No, law shouldn't be based on opinion and you'd be hard pressed to prove how many laws were built on caprice. Politics maybe, but fewer just laws. Moods, passions and emotions are subject to massive and frequent fluctuations; basing the laws of your society on these impermanent feelings as opposed to objective virtues is a good way of creating rifts and unequal society in short time. Least of all the restricting of speech - the sole way we communicate with others, the system on which we build all other laws, intentions and meanings.

Being based on feelings does not mean it is based on whims. And yes, we are feeling animals, and everything we do are driven by emotions, all opinions, all likes and dislike, all our sense of justice and injustice. We can't not act on emotion - even if you make an effort to not do it that whole action would stem from your feelings that it is better. There is no such thing as "objective virtues" - things are only as virtuous as we feel they are. If you think what you feel are virtues are objective truth, then your just blind to how the world works. Which wouldn't be surprising, because not understanding and/or having any experience with the real world is something I find to come up in your posts on a very frequent basis.

Being based on feelings means you are basing it on emotions which are a result of moods and circumstance, this would make it easily vulnerable to whims. We are capable of more than being sensory machines who express the emotions of our biological leash because we are also capable of making decisions wholely unrelated to our emotions, such as doing things that would disgust us or incite terror within us.
An objective virtue is both virtuous because it is the moral standard irrespective of emotion or circumstance as good Harold shows, and it is objective because it is the closest to the actual reality of justice we can perceive.

[XXSockXX]

The fairness and rightness of such objective moral actions are based on fundamental natures of reality and the nature of mankind. But while the individual and specific moral codes are often subject to change; things like economic systems and the distribution of power, the core objective virtues which allow us to change and build these extra virtues in the first place must be protected, even if all are against them.

But what are "objective virtues" and are these not subject to change as well?

I feel like I agree with 90% of what you are saying, but you seem to make the assumption that people are more or less reasonable which is completely wrong IMHO. Your idea of free speech might work in an ideal world, but that is clearly not the one we live in.

In Germany we have some very specific limits on free speech, pertaining everything that openly glorifies the Nazis. I actually doubt very much that we still need these limitations today, but they were clearly needed to make a transition to modern democracy work, as people raised and educated under Nazi rule were very much imprinted with the ideology.

You see the decriminalization of homosexuality as something positive, but are you sure that we are ready as a society to extend free speech to "all gays should be killled"? If someone said something like "all left-handed people should be killed", he would be met with the appropriate ridicule and ignored. If someone calls for all black people to be killed, that has historical precedence and might actually lead to acts of violence.

In Germany today, if you say something that even vaguely tries to justify Nazi-stuff ("but at least Hitler build the Autobahn" is a popular one), you very much discredit yourself for serious discourse. Therefore I find we don't need to imprison people who publicly show swastikas anymore, they are just making asses of themselves in the eyes the majority. But I wouldn't be comfortable to allow serious calls for violence against minorities or actually anyone, as long as that is likely to cause actions.

[Loud Whispers]

But what are "objective virtues" and are these not subject to change as well?

These are moral guidelines that could be applied to every sane person and used to build a fair society. Things like the equality of all within our species, the sanctity of life and dignified life, rights to education and of course freedom of expression and belief.

I feel like I agree with 90% of what you are saying, but you seem to make the assumption that people are more or less reasonable which is completely wrong IMHO. Your idea of free speech might work in an ideal world, but that is clearly not the one we live in.

In Germany we have some very specific limits on free speech, pertaining everything that openly glorifies the Nazis. I actually doubt very much that we still need these limitations today, but they were clearly needed to make a transition to modern democracy work, as people raised and educated under Nazi rule were very much imprinted with the ideology.

You see the decriminalization of homosexuality as something positive, but are you sure that we are ready as a society to extend free speech to "all gays should be killled"? If someone said something like "all left-handed people should be killed", he would be met with the appropriate ridicule and ignored. If someone calls for all black people to be killed, that has historical precedence and might actually lead to acts of violence.

I see no difference between that and the tumblr snowflakes chanting 'Die cis scum.' It is within their rights to express themselves, and it is also within anyone else's rights to chant with them or criticize them or simply ignore them, much in the same way that those comments could be met with.

In Germany today, if you say something that even vaguely tries to justify Nazi-stuff ("but at least Hitler build the Autobahn" is a popular one), you very much discredit yourself for serious discourse. Therefore I find we don't need to imprison people who publicly show swastikas anymore, they are just making asses of themselves in the eyes the majority. But I wouldn't be comfortable to allow serious calls for violence against minorities or actually anyone, as long as that is likely to cause actions.

You do yourself disfavour where people start drawing these lines, because they are terrible at drawing and instead opt for the much easier option of 'fuck free speech.' Would 'remove kebab' be worthy of banning despite it literally being harmless, or do we project into our thoughts?
“If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.”
Would that qualify?

[XXSockXX]

But what are "objective virtues" and are these not subject to change as well?

These are moral guidelines that could be applied to every sane person and used to build a fair society. Things like the equality of all within our species, the sanctity of life and dignified life, rights to education and of course freedom of expression and belief.

I don't think there is anything that could be applied to "every sane person". We would have to define "sane" and that has historical and cultural implications. Same for "fair society". And please, where are equality, rights to education and freedom of expression and belief universally agreed upon? And "sanctity of life"? What is that supposed to mean, I only partially agree with that one depending on the definition.
Basically these are all values of what I would call an ideal society, but they are in no way objective or universal, and have very different histories.

I see no difference between that and the tumblr snowflakes chanting 'Die cis scum.' It is within their rights to express themselves, and it is also within anyone else's rights to chant with them or criticize them or simply ignore them, much in the same way that those comments could be met with.

The very obvious difference I see is that the "murder cis scum" agenda has so far proven to be pretty non-consequential. That is pretty much a joke, even if the person saying it means it. You can however mobilize people with racist or homophobic calls for violence at the moment. These things are subject to change as well, 100 years ago you could organize an anti-socialist mob and start mass-fights, that would not work anymore today.

You do yourself disfavour where people start drawing these lines, because they are terrible at drawing and instead opt for the much easier option of 'fuck free speech.' Would 'remove kebab' be worthy of banning despite it literally being harmless, or do we project into our thoughts?
“If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.”
Would that qualify?

No...I'm not sure if I understand that completely. "Remove kebab" would be something I would never ban. I'm not very much in favor of banning at all. I wouldn't ban "deport all immigrants", even if that would probably be unconstitutional or something. I would draw the line at stuff like "burn all kebab shops" or "kill all immigrants" probably, and it might possibly play a role who is saying it. There is a difference if some angry kid is saying something thoughtlessly or if the leader of a know-to-be-violent organisation is saying it. In that case it is less about restricting free speech, but about preventing crimes, as the free speech in that case effectively is uttering a plan to commit a crime.

[Ogdibus]

.

[Loud Whispers]

I don't think there is anything that could be applied to "every sane person". We would have to define "sane" and that has historical and cultural implications. Same for "fair society".

Then define without historical and cultural implications. To be sane is to be sensible, without mental illness and perfectly not mad.
Though in searching for a definition, I do find that the idea of a sane person is just as arbitrary of what one could deem a 'normal' person. Nevertheless, in this theoretical example let us assume we had actual sane group of hippocamps and then work on finding what core liberties that if they were to follow would lead to a fair society best adapted for its environment. These values do not rely on the existence of the mythical sane person, but would allow any sane persons at that time to function together happily, and would lead to a balanced society - where rewards and punishment are in proportion to all without prejudices of identity or history.
The ideal list of these virtues would mean that were you to get any sample of peoples and task them with building a town, as long as they were to follow those core virtues above their own prejudices, then it'd be as close to a social Utopia as we could get.

And please, where are equality, rights to education and freedom of expression and belief universally agreed upon? And "sanctity of life"?

Well they're not universally agreed on, why else would I be barking in this thread? Chances are, one person's not going to change the world much. However, with freedom of expression I can rant on about it to infinity and beyond, and sooner or later [maybe] someone will think 'oh hey that's actually a rather nice idea' and now that'll be two people who can change the world a bit more. A 100% increase!

What is that [sanctity of life] supposed to mean, I only partially agree with that one depending on the definition.

The value of life being inviolable.

Basically these are all values of what I would call an ideal society, but they are in no way objective or universal, and have very different histories.

And why they would be objective virtues is because regardless of history or what predispositions we hold, they are fair and lead to balanced society.

The very obvious difference I see is that the "murder cis scum" agenda has so far proven to be pretty non-consequential. That is pretty much a joke, even if the person saying it means it. You can however mobilize people with racist or homophobic calls for violence at the moment. These things are subject to change as well, 100 years ago you could organize an anti-socialist mob and start mass-fights, that would not work anymore today.

That is an obvious difference, the circumstance. And that is what I believe to be the duty of civic law and society to work against. By making such inflammatory statements illegal, you only serve to turn bigots into criminals who will return to society from imprisonment as criminals, nor will you stop the careless from making these statements and the most important thing of all - you will only worsen their opinions.

No...I'm not sure if I understand that completely. "Remove kebab" would be something I would never ban. I'm not very much in favor of banning at all. I wouldn't ban "deport all immigrants", even if that would probably be unconstitutional or something. I would draw the line at stuff like "burn all kebab shops" or "kill all immigrants" probably, and it might possibly play a role who is saying it. There is a difference if some angry kid is saying something thoughtlessly or if the leader of a know-to-be-violent organisation is saying it. In that case it is less about restricting free speech, but about preventing crimes, as the free speech in that case effectively is uttering a plan to commit a crime.

It's important because 'remove kebab' is a euphemism for 'remove middle-Easterners,' and not exactly with the friendliest intent. The quote there: “If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.” Was from Malcom X, openly racist and yet still an important humanist in US history. So many social movements would have died so quickly had they been emerging under our censorship policies.
As is observed, even when drawing the line at violent sounding phrases, it's so incredibly easy for people who do seek to incite hatred, slay sacred cows, be expressive, be funny or edgy or whatever using euphemisms, while you've only succeeded in constricting freedom of expression, giving clear distinction also against 'known-to-be-violent' organisations.
And I remember arguing against this notion of 'stopping a crime,' unless a declaration that the crime is going to begin - it is not a declaration of crimes to begin.
You throw away needlessly an inviolable right to express yourself, and you'd kill even the most innocent of persons who made shocking statements made with the intentions of humour under the bus, merely because they made - to borrow from Neonivek's coinage, parody cake.
Charlie Chaplin was hardly advocating Nazism was he now?

Is it necessary to make fun of trans-activists in order to have this discussion?

Trans-activists =/= Tumblr snowflakes
Statements =/= People
Ideas =/= Above scrutiny

[XXSockXX]

The ideal list of these virtues would mean that were you to get any sample of peoples and task them with building a town, as long as they were to follow those core virtues above their own prejudices, then it'd be as close to a social Utopia as we could get.

Ok, I get that, you are talking about ideal utopian values, that I would agree upon, but are not necessarily part of existing societies.

That is an obvious difference, the circumstance. And that is what I believe to be the duty of civic law and society to work against. By making such inflammatory statements illegal, you only serve to turn bigots into criminals who will return to society from imprisonment as criminals, nor will you stop the careless from making these statements and the most important thing of all - you will only worsen their opinions.

Yes, it is all about circumstance and context. Or essentially preventing people who already are criminals to commit further crimes.

It's important because 'remove kebab' is a euphemism for 'remove middle-Easterners,' and not exactly with the friendliest intent. The quote there: “If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.” Was from Malcom X, openly racist and yet still an important humanist in US history. So many social movements would have died so quickly had they been emerging under our censorship policies.
As is observed, even when drawing the line at violent sounding phrases, it's so incredibly easy for people who do seek to incite hatred, slay sacred cows, be expressive, be funny or edgy or whatever using euphemisms, while you've only succeeded in constricting freedom of expression, giving clear distinction also against 'known-to-be-violent' organisations.
And I remember arguing against this notion of 'stopping a crime,' unless a declaration that the crime is going to begin - it is not a declaration of crimes to begin.
You throw away needlessly an inviolable right to express yourself, and you'd kill even the most innocent of persons who made shocking statements made with the intentions of humour under the bus, merely because they made - to borrow from Neonivek's coinage, parody cake.
Charlie Chaplin was hardly advocating Nazism was he now?

Ok that part I partially misunderstood in your first post I think. I would have rated "remove kebab" as a simple call for a boycott of certain products, which I would consider relatively harmless despite racial implications. I also did not recognize the Malcolm X quote, and while I understand that counter-racism is a viable expression for opressed minorities, I don't condone that line of thinking.
I'm very much for full freedom of expression in the arts, my concerns probaly are related to crime prevention, as there are in my eyes expressions from certain people that more or less are declarations that a crime is going to begin. As I said before, context is important here, a nazi-educated grandma who says somehing racist can only be partially faulted IMO, while a leader of a neo-nazi group who openly calls for violent actions clearly is likely to just declare that a crime is going to be committed, which should warrant some sort of investigation.