Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

I don't think I was clear enough. I was responding to your statement that "freedom of speech protects individuals from the government hindering the right to speak freely". I was trying to say that it doesn't just protect individuals from the government, that it applies to everyone.

Ok. That freedom is still not protected from the consequences of how they choose to use that right.

Of course it isn't protected, and that is my main point. My point is that it should be protected, and that no one is doing enough to protect it. We are returning to medieval levels of censorship here.

No one is being censored. You can say anything you like.

The problem is that too many people are returning to the medieval levels of thinking that they can say what they want without paying the consequences.

You need to go back re-read a bit of medieval history if you believe that there was freedom from consequences of speech in those days. The King or the Pope, or any of their representatives could take your life for speech. My goodness, you must have missed a few days of history class.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I wasn't implying that it was off topic or too specific. Actually the OP has made threads on the topic before and I participated in some so I didn't even really bother with fully reading the OP.

The basic idea is "you are wrong if you hit me for what I say."

I argued in one of the other threads "They should have expected it".

Similar to what you are saying.

If you provoke someone and you know some people don't agree with the no hitting policy then how could you not be expecting it?

If we set aside all the pseudo-philosophic crap aside, sometimes it isn't just expected it but they are counting on it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If you need to define what free speech is, then that tells me that you don't want it.

If you don't define it, then it cannot be refereed to. If it cannot be referred to then it can only exist in your delusional mind or those who share a similar mindset.

Are you afraid to define it because you know that once you do, I might able to reasonably destroy your currently-held belief that you support 100% unrestricted freedom of speech?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

No.

It just tells me that I support more freedoms than you do.

You want to confine, define, and regulate speech.



I would like to see free expression being treated as free expression.



You do not want free speech. You and several others want civil speech. You want it regulated and if it offends, you want the speaker punished.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

abridging the freedom of speech,

Same argument against 2nd Amendment.
How do you bypass the First Amendment in libel cases?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
No.

It just tells me that I support more freedoms than you do.

You want to confine, define, and regulate speech.

I would like to see free expression being treated as free expression.

You do not want free speech. You and several others want civil speech. You want it regulated and if it offends, you want the speaker punished.

If you are arguing that you want more freedoms without consequence than me, you would be right. I don't think we need any more freedoms without consequence. Unless somebody can bring forth a new reasonable freedom without consequence and explain why it is necessary, I will not support it.

I would prefer 100% freedom of speech actually, but unlike you, I have considered the consequences for doing so, which has led me to reason that it is not a realistic expectation.

My arguments have NOTHING to do with preventing others from taking offence — I am probably closer to being on your side than you actually realise. My arguments have to do with 100% unrestricted Freedom of Speech which cannot function without some REALLY horrible consequences that you refuse to even acknowledge are possible.

I am not asking you to define what you believe is freedom of speech so that I can pick it apart word by word and then go "YES, I got you here, therefore you are wrong!" I don't do that kind of thing. I want you to give me some basis of which to argue against. How can I go inside your head and determine what you mean by Freedom of Speech? You need to tell me what you define it as before we can debate who is right and who is wrong.

Are you up to the challenge?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

abridging the freedom of speech,

Same argument against 2nd Amendment.
How do you bypass the First Amendment in libel cases?

To be honest with you, I am not an American and I do not have advanced knowledge of the US constitution in detail. I believe in "Freedom of Speech to the most reasonable degree", not 100% Freedom of Speech without freedom from consequences as a result of using that freedom of speech.

I need to establish if DBCowboy is arguing in support of the Constitution's definition or some other one.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

I fully agree. The trouble is you cannot eliminate emotion completely when addressing these issues because then we would not be humans, we would be robots that cannot feel, express emotion or have compassion.

I think we're pretty much on the same page, but I will add this: I'm certainly not advocating eliminating emotions. I just think people should be taught as early as possible that emotions are not magical things that come from nowhere. They originate in the brain and are more often than not learned behaviors. As such, they can be used for positive effect when the situation calls for it. Fear of lions on the Serengeti is a good thing, the zoo is a different story.

I think people need to ask themselves, "If someone else can control my actions with their words, whose fault is that? Do I really have so little self control that the utterance of a few syllables can cause me to act irrationally? Is punching someone really the correct response to criticism of my white socks and sandals?"

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I think we're pretty much on the same page, but I will add this: I'm certainly not advocating eliminating emotions. I just think people should be taught as early as possible that emotions are not magical things that come from nowhere. They originate in the brain and are more often than not learned behaviors. As such, they can be used for positive effect when the situation calls for it. Fear of lions on the Serengeti is a good thing, the zoo is a different story.

Agreed.

I think people need to ask themselves, "If someone else can control my actions with their words, whose fault is that? Do I really have so little self control that the utterance of a few syllables can cause me to act irrationally? Is punching someone really the correct response to criticism of my white socks and sandals?"

Would you consider constant verbal harassment to be an exception, or should somebody be able to tolerate even that without resorting to violence — even if it is likely they have already told the perpetrator that they will resort to violence if the verbal harassment does not stop?

(For this example, let us define verbal harassment as continually saying something at least 3 times minimum AFTER the person has clearly established they do not want to argue or be subjected to you shouting at them about something you disagree with? Which would include a situation where they either were going to physically restrain you or threaten your right to escape the harassment when you have clearly already asked them to stop doing it.

In the above situation, I personally WOULD classify violence as a just reaction because it would fall under the very reasonable self-defence exception.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

No.

It's late and I have exhausted myself in other threads with this topic.

I believe in more freedoms, not less.

You find that unrealistic, perhaps it is, seeing that so many don't want free speech even around here.

I see free speech taking a beating because so many think that being offended enables them with some sort of super power that enables them to silence others.

I'm always going to side with more freedoms, no matter how unrealistic you (or others) find it.

Because if you're not for more freedoms, then you're for less.

a reply to: daskakik

If you provoke someone and you know some people don't agree with the no hitting policy then how could you not expecting it?

The policy as you put it, is the law of the land. It is assault. No. I do not expect to be hit if I express my opinion. That just crazy talk. I do not expect to have my property destroyed if I express my opinion in a public manner. No matter how much the left or the right disagrees with my libertarian views, they do not have the right to cause me bodily harm for expressing those views. You do not have the right to violate my rights just because you don't like what I've said.

If I go down to the county court house and denounce the local governing body as a bunch of liars and schemers, I can expect them to be angry. I can even expect them to threaten me with legal proceedings. But if I have proof that my speech was true, they have to settle for getting over their discomfort at my revelations. Should I expect to be threatened with arson and bodily harm? No. I should not but indeed---it does happen. It did happen.

It was a crude and illegal ploy to silence me. Had I allowed myself (and others, there was a whole gang of us) to be silenced the corruption would have continued. And those of us who knew about it would have been equally guilty because we did not speak out and try to make it right. So we decided to fight fire with fire. Anytime it was "mentioned" in somewhat "casual" conversation, "If you keep this up, somebody might burn down your house." our reply was, "If some mother's son wants to burn my house he better know that he'll be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his natural life, until I find him and kill him dead as a doornail." We exercised our freedom of speech to predict the future.

"No hitting" isn't a policy. It's the law.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
No.

It's late and I have exhausted myself in other threads with this topic.

I believe in more freedoms, not less.

You find that unrealistic, perhaps it is, seeing that so many don't want free speech even around here.

I see free speech taking a beating because so many think that being offended enables them with some sort of super power that enables them to silence others.

I'm always going to side with more freedoms, no matter how unrealistic you (or others) find it.

Because if you're not for more freedoms, then you're for less.

Do you take me for a fool, DBCowboy?

Do you take others who disagree with 100% unrestricted Freedom of Speech to be fools as well?

If you are too tired then don't participate until you are feeling alert. If you felt your point already got through to others in another thread, why post in this one? Why invite a debate when you had no obligation to commit to one, and never intended for one to occur after your provocative statement that introduced us to your participation in this thread?

If you want ultimate freedoms, why don't you go live in the woods away from civilised society? What prevents you from leaving your current dwelling which I assume is part of some type of community?

Slightly different angle on the subject. Not so much about the theory of freedom of speech, but more why we are even having this discussion.

My personal opinion on the erosion of freedom of speech, especially in surprising places like Universities, has come about so easily due to Academics operating out of fear of being questioned about their own work.

I have noticed over the last 15 years that as the motto of "Publish or Die " has turned into "Publish any Rubbish or Die " has led to censorship of embarrassing questions.

When people are constantly operating out of fear, they act out in often radical and illogical ways.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you write elsewhere? I feel like your writing is wasted on ATS. You are either preaching to the choir, or shouting at a wall.

We live in strange times, people are actually violently protesting freedom of speech, and doing everything they possibly can to give away our civil liberties in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

Keep up the good work, I will always read it.

I concur.

a reply to: diggindirt

I meant no hitting in the hypothetical discussion of the OP.

In the real world it still doesn't matter to some people.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The right is for everyone, whether citizen or not. It's a human right.

When you refer to "human rights", I assume you are actually referring to the concept of inalienable human rights? If so, then no, I do not agree that there is such as thing as inalienable human rights. What basis is there for anybody to assert that human rights exist? Who or what is the ultimate authority that determines what these rights are and who should get them?

If people are born within a society, your parents are at minimum partially responsible for the consequences of their child's illegal behaviour. If a minor breaks the law before reaching adulthood, you and your parents will probably both suffer punishment as a result. When you reach the legal age of adulthood, it becomes your own responsibility. By living within a society of which you are granted rights and freedoms for doing so, you have obligations and responsibility to adhere to those rights within the law of the land.

Rights don't exist when you or others are removed from a society that enforces those rights. For example, I can be a USA citizen and go to Holland to smoke drugs that are considered illegal back in the USA and I ought not expect to suffer the consequences from my native country. I am not smoking drugs inside the USA or bringing them in, I am doing so where it is legal to do so.

Either what you meant is "human rights granted by a Western country" or "UN sponsored human rights" when you initially said "human rights", or you did mean alienable human rights which don't exist, in which case you would be wrong.

If you disagree, please explain why.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I think we’ve all heard the argument “freedom speech, but not freedom from consequences” from some obscurantist or other. But baked into this piece of amoral hubris is the criticism that the speaker should expect certain consequences for his speech: that if only the speaker had shut up, had not said anything at all, he would not have met with the unfortunate consequences, whatever those may be. From this we are one step closer to advocating for censorship.

This half-argument, as daft and dangerous as it is, proliferated in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The New York Times even published an opinion piece titled “Freedom of speech, Not freedom of consequences”, in which Yousef Munayyer argues that writers and artists should “expect that provocative expressions will provoke and what exactly it provokes is impossible to know”, and because of this, “each writer, artist and publisher must decide for themselves which risks they are willing to take”. I can only imagine what he says about provocative clothing and what that provokes.

Salman Rushdie did in fact expect consequences for his Satanic Verses, though it came as a surprise that a state leader called for his assassination. Unfortunately, his Japanese translator, whom was murdered and mutilated, and his Norwegian publisher, whom was shot in the back and left for dead, didn’t. I guess we should amend the “freedom of speech” part with “the freedom to publish” before the nauseating caveat “but not freedom of consequences”. Give it time and we can lay all fundamental rights at the alter of someone’s feelings.

But what about Mashal Kahn from Pakistan, whom was beaten to death by his fellow students for criticizing a religion? Adding insult to his murder, his funeral was disrupted by fire-breathing clerics, who ridiculed and slurred the dead student over loud-speaker as his family mourned over his coffin. Imagine the apologists for self-censorship dispensing their silly advice here. “Well, old boy, freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences, am I right? If only you had kept your mouth shut, you’d still be alive.”

Perhaps it is naive to expect those who enjoy fundamental freedoms to defend them at all costs, and most especially from unjustified threat, coercion and violence. Instead we are given the logic of victim-blaming, and the capitulation to the dogmatic and the superstitious. We are told we have to adapt the posture of self-censorship just in case the violent cannot control their actions.

It is never the duty of the writer or publisher to weigh in advance the future possibility of violent reprisal for writing or speaking—it is always, and always will be, the duty of the offended to get over their feelings before they start beating people to death.

LesMis

You have completely and I would assume deliberately misrepresented the NY times article.

Salman Rushdie did have freedom of speech. No restriction was placed on its publication in the UK and he was extensively protected afterwards.

Pakistan doesn't have freedom of speech.


Countries that actually have freedom of speech also have extensive laws protecting you from violence. What freedom of speech doesn't protect you from is other people's freedom of speech.

If you say bigoted nonsense you should fully expect to be called on it. If you breech the The t&cs of a private web page their freedom means they are not obliged to carry your comments.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

One should certainly expect some consquence for what one says.

However vilolence should not always be one of them. The consequences should prortional to extend of offence. In any event violence should not be one of them. Violence should only be used to protect onself from a driect physical threat to life and limb.

There are many more appropriate consequences than violence. An insult of the worst kind should still be met with peaceful response because there are other forms of consequence that are available.

originally posted by: Azureblue

One should certainly expect some consquence for what one says.

However vilolence should not always be one of them. The consequences should prortional to extend of offence. In any event violence should not be one of them. Violence should only be used to protect onself from a driect physical threat to life and limb.

There are many more appropriate consequences than violence. An insult of the worst kind should still be met with peaceful response because there are other forms of consequence that are available.

It really is context specific, though.

For example, if in a court room a man is attending an appeal in relation to the murder of his daughter where the defendant was originally found guilty and sentenced to life behind bars. During the appeal, the father looks at the accused while he is on the stand and is met back with eye contact and a subsequent smile as he details how the man's daughter was known to sleep around. At this point the father loses control of his emotions and runs to the stand and starts beating the defendant so badly that he loses consciousness.

Should the defendant be permitted to press charges against the father for violent assault intending to cause grievous bodily harm? If not, why not? Would you sentence the father to jail if you were the presiding judge of the case and the accused had a legal right to press charges, considering the whole event in context? Should the father have been able to control his emotions, wait until the next recess, approach the judge and tell him "what the accused said really insulted me, can you punish him further under the law?" Is that a realistic expectation?

Another example: a woman who was the victim of a sexual assault that left her traumatised is out a few years later at a shopping centre. If a man approaches her and he is wearing similar clothing to the man that assaulted her in the past, as well as being of a similar height and similar physical resemblance, if that man walks up to her and asks if she knows where the Nike store is but is instead met with pepper spray and a kick to the groin so hard that he is left on the ground screaming in pain, would the man who got assaulted be permitted to press charges against the woman? Would you, as the judge, punish the woman for assault when everything is put into context? Why or why not?

The above might seem like "extreme" examples, but they do happen and the need to prepare for them is real if we want a fair and just legal system. Sometimes violence is the only option. Sometimes violence acts as a defence mechanism even when objectively it does not seem like it is the case.

"Words are just words and shouldn't lead to any type of violence" is a useful motto to live by. But it is too broad in scope when you consider the above examples I mentioned.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Edward Snowden, Julian Assange', Chelsea Clinton, Gary McKinnon are still suffering real life consequences for their right to free speech.

There is speech that gets you accolades, speech that gets you boo's, speech that gets you clocked at rallies, speech that gets you killed and speech that gets you, your family and your friends killed.

If there were no humans and no emotions involved then anyone could say whatever is on their minds with no chance of negative repercussions, but alas, the stupid humans and their uncontrollable emotions and actions. (emphasis on the word 'uncontrollable')

Sounds like you're blaming the victim. Truth is, unless you're saying speech is manipulating your actions, you clock people at rallies by your own choices and actions.

Then you have misinterpreted - no blaming, just my opinion based on observations that there will always be those who want to act with violence to enforce / follow an idea. In the broad sense, there is little difference between 2 countries warring for resources/territory/corporate interests and 2 groups of activists warring on campus grounds over politics.

Talking doesn't cut it for some, they believe that through violence their agenda will be achieved.

That is the point I am making, from the individual through to the collective, our history is full of violence because 'ideas'.