BROTM On U.S. Free Speech Fetish

[John Smith]

Free speech is NOT absolute. Some speech is outright illegal.

The way I learned it, which makes sense to me, is everyone has the right to voice an opinion no matter if others find it objectionable.

Deceiving others, or lying about others, gets us into fraud, slander, or libel. These things are not free speech. Nor is inciting violence. That's illegal, or is supposed to be.

[Canoeyawl]

This current case is interesting:


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/supreme-court-hears-free-speech-192854967.html

"The Supreme Court on Monday grappled with the scope of the federal crime involving the encouragement of illegal immigration and whether it violates the First Amendment.The Justice Department urged the high court to reverse a lower court decision and uphold the crime as constitutional, arguing the free-speech concerns are misplaced because they assume an erroneous, broader reading of the law as a premise.
Whether that argument holds up will in part depend on if the justices agree with the government’s narrower view."

[Peerie Maa]

Another British take on the issue.

The trial of a woman who lied about being the victim of an Asian grooming gang was put at risk by social media, an MP has claimed.
Barrow-in-Furness MP Simon Fell urged ministers to make it subject to the same conditions as traditional media.
He said allegations posted by Eleanor Williams on Facebook "went viral".
That had made it difficult for police to gather evidence and "risked the viability of a trial going ahead", he said.
Williams, of Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, was jailed for eight-and-a-half years for perverting the course of justice after falsely claiming to have been raped, trafficked and beaten.
One Facebook post in which she made allegations was shared more than 100,000 times.
<snip>
Justice minister Mike Freer said contempt of court and reporting restrictions already applied to content published on social media but the government was "continually looking" at how the law could be strengthened.
"We've asked the Law Commission to consider this issue as part of a wider ranging review of the law of contempt of court," he said.
"Two new offences in the Online Safety Bill will criminalise the type of behaviour we have seen in the Eleanor Williams case.
"A false communications offence will criminalise communications where the person sends information they know to be false with the intention of causing harm."
Mr Freer told MPs arrangements with social media companies were in place to ensure relevant material is highlighted and removed but the government was working to improve the enforcement of anonymity laws.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-65105669

Why we need to do something about unfettered social media:

A man falsely accused of rape by a serial fantasist says his life was "destroyed" by her allegations.
Preston Crown Court heard Williams had made rape claims against men dating back to 2017 with a Facebook post in May 2020 sparking angry protests in Barrow after being shared more than 100,000 times.
Claiming to have been injured by a gang, wounds shown in photographs she posted were actually self-inflicted with a hammer she had bought herself.
Local businessman Mohammed Ramzan was another of those accused of abusing Williams.
She alleged he groomed her from the age of 12 and forced her to work in brothels in Amsterdam.
A third man - Oliver Gardner, who met Williams through a chance encounter in Preston - was accused of being a rapist who had trafficked her and sold her for sex.
<snip>
After being released following a bail hearing, he initially stayed with a friend 50 miles (80km) away in Workington before returning to Barrow.
"It was a relief [to be released]. A weight off my shoulders. But I knew I was going to be coming out to violence and threats because mud sticks.
"I'd had 'rapist' spray-painted on my house and windows smashed. I knew I wasn't going to be welcomed.
"When I got back to Barrow, all I can describe it as is hell. I was getting abuse, looked at, spoken about. I didn't want to leave my house. It was so bad.
"It took several years for people to understand we were innocent."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64977202

[Peerie Maa]

You force me to repeat myself, pillock.



The neighbor lady has a very learned, refined aesthetic sense. The way I prune my tree offends this sense, it harms her. Meanwhile she has her giant poodle cut like a topiary, a series of spheres. It harms me, man. I think of what she's doing to that poor animal and it makes me want to barf.

We go to court. What does the court say? The court says, GTFOOH. What became of our right not to be harmed?

Yep, your straw men (Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.) do make you come acres as a nuclear grade plumb.
Do try to insect some reality, some moderation, in the your arguments.

[Keith Wilson]

I assume you meant 'insert'.

[Peerie Maa]

You force me to repeat myself.

Just in case I am misunderstanding you, and thereby doing you a disservice, will you clarify something for me?

Where do you believe that Human Rights come from?

Were they created 13.7 billion years ago, when the Universe and its Laws of Physics were created?

Where do you believe that they originated?

[gypsie]

You force me to repeat myself, pillock.



The neighbor lady has a very learned, refined aesthetic sense. The way I prune my tree offends this sense, it harms her. Meanwhile she has her giant poodle cut like a topiary, a series of spheres. It harms me, man. I think of what she's doing to that poor animal and it makes me want to barf.

We go to court. What does the court say? The court says, GTFOOH. What became of our right not to be harmed?

Really?
In the USA you can't tell the difference between harm and 'preferring the world was different'?
Everyone else can do it, or at worst have the debate.
I thought you guys was sofisticated.

[gypsie]

I would say 'safety' is the better term. If I say something that could lead to someone being harmed, I have made them unsafe. Harm seems to be (oh so very American) about personal litigation and probably compensation.
Israel Falau, a very public figure with a media mega phone, said gays were destined for hell. No legal action but he did lose his job, cause rugby wants to be inclusive. Fine.
Had he said all gays should be treated badly... now he hasn't harmed anyone but he has certainly made the world less safe for gays. It doesn't need someone to be harmed for him to feel the heat of the legal system.

[Osborne Russell]

Just in case I am misunderstanding you, and thereby doing you a disservice, will you clarify something for me?

Where do you believe that Human Rights come from?

Were they created 13.7 billion years ago, when the Universe and its Laws of Physics were created?

Where do you believe that they originated?

Where did science "originate"? When a chimp found that a thick twig wouldn't go in the hole to get the ants, and switched to a thin twig? And thereafter used a thin twig? I don't know about when or where. The important thing is that it's here now.

And like science, natural rights are drawn conceptually from nature. The "law" of gravity isn't nature, it's a conception drawn from nature. That's where it "originates" in the human ability to conceive, and from practical necessity.

The chimp wants the ants. We want a way to order our society. From nature we draw the observation that nature does not create a right to rule in some individuals and the obligation to submit in others. Yet there must be rules and rulers.

You can, and should, test the hypothesis of natural rights constantly.

That's what I call the "material" side. Upon that foundation, a system of morals is built.

[Osborne Russell]

Really?
In the USA you can't tell the difference between harm and 'preferring the world was different'?
Everyone else can do it, or at worst have the debate.
I thought you guys was sofisticated.

I don't follow.

[Keith Wilson]

Where do you believe that Human Rights come from?

'Human Rights' are a subset of ethics. If we say something is a 'human right', what that means is that everybody should behave in such a way as not to infringe it, and to do otherwise is wrong. They 'come from' the same place all other ideas about right and wrong come.

[Osborne Russell]

I would say 'safety' is the better term. If I say something that could lead to someone being harmed, I have made them unsafe. Harm seems to be (oh so very American) about personal litigation and probably compensation.
Israel Falau, a very public figure with a media mega phone, said gays were destined for hell. No legal action but he did lose his job, cause rugby wants to be inclusive. Fine.
Had he said all gays should be treated badly... now he hasn't harmed anyone but he has certainly made the world less safe for gays. It doesn't need someone to be harmed for him to feel the heat of the legal system.

Again, I don't follow. Safety is a better term than what, for what purpose?

That there is no right not to be harmed comes from English law, brought there by the Romans. "There is no wrong without a remedy, and where there is no remedy, there is no wrong." This was the point of my hypothetical about the poodle and the tree.

"Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy."

It is the traditional purpose of equity to find solutions in lawsuits. Where money will not pay for the injury, equity has the authority to find another remedy.

This maxim is a restatement of the broad legal principle: Ubi jus, ibi remedium, "Where there is a right, there is a remedy." The maxim is applied in equity in an orderly way. It does not mean that anything goes. It calls forth recognized remedies for well-established wrongs, wrongs that are invasions of property rights or personal or Civil Rights and that the law considers actionable. A court will not listen to complaints about every petty annoyance or immoral act.

[emphasis added]

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...t+a+remedy.%22

So there's not a right not to be harmed, beyond what the law defines as harm.

Speech that threatens safety, such as "fire!" in a crowded theater is recognized as harm. Note the time, place, and manner. Yelling, in a crowded theater. This guy ranting about gays burn in hell might be recognized as harm, given a particular time, place and manner. If so, a court -- a court in the Anglo-American moral world -- would say: "Not generally, but in this time, place and manner, in the time, place, and manner, shown by the facts in this case only, harm is recognized." Courts go one case at a time, in the Anglo-American moral world. Otherwise the judiciary usurps the role of the legislature. This is particularly English, not American. England has parliamentary supremacy. Courts in England cannot overrule Parliament in even a limited class of cases, as in the USA. Courts in England lack the power, period.

Either way, one is free to assert that something not previously recognized as a harm, ought to be, and the courts are free to recognize it. They are very reluctant to invent new harms, and you have to understand why. To recognize a harm is to say that the state may deprive someone of life, liberty and property to redress that harm. In a case where the legislature has not authorized it, you can see why the courts are reluctant to do so. If the legislature has authorized it, there is still the question of whether it invades due process i.e. human rights. They are very solicitous of human rights and very wary of approving new powers in the government to curtail them, especially when the legislature has not gone first.

Just for laughs, could I ask you to comment on this proposition:

1. The law of due process forbids the state to deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This is uncontroversial, goes back to Magna Carta at the latest.

2. The corollary is that, given due process, courts don't do anything but deprive people of life, liberty and property. With due process of law. Every time that gavel comes down. What does a court do, ever, that doesn't deprive someone of "LLP"? This is never said, for some reason. Perhaps it's wrong. But it's not entirely wrong. And the part that's not wrong is where the caution, the conservatism, comes from. From the certainty that state power will be abused. Not from an "irrational fetish".

It doesn't need someone to be harmed for him to feel the heat of the legal system.

But it does, if by "legal system" you mean courts. If no individual can state a recognized harm to his individual rights -- e.g. the right not to be offended by a poodle cut -- there is nothing over which a court has power. This is an intentional limitation on the powers of the judiciary, a design function, a feature, not a bug.

It is a great complaint of CRT. Their remedy is that the judiciary should have the power it has never had to rule beyond the facts of the case presented, i.e to legislate. Do you agree? We should jettison the separation of powers because there is no other way to combat racism? Let me just suggest, the separation of powers protects your rights, which means it protects your ass. Life, liberty, property. That's why it was conceived.

[Osborne Russell]

'Human Rights' are a subset of ethics. If we say something is a 'human right', what that means is that everybody should behave in such a way as not to infringe it, and to do otherwise is wrong. They 'come from' the same place all other ideas about right and wrong come.

Yes, but coming from the same place, the ethics are new, different, radical. That which shall not be infringed.

The unavoidable implication is that they were never infringed, by right. Only by power, the legitimacy of which we deny. In that sense they are not new. They never were and never can be legitimate. Just like gravity. As we have managed to understand it, it has always been here. Nature.

Natural rights.

I know it's difficult. The lower nature objects.

[Keith Wilson]

Sorry, ethical principles are not natural laws, not aspects of nature like gravity. You cannot violate physical laws, no matter how much you might want to. Ethical laws, sure, if you have the power. Doesn't make it right, just possible.

[Osborne Russell]

Right is what it's about.

[WI-Tom]

Tom says he doesn't know this. He must have learned it somewhere else.

Wrong again. You are consistent.

What I said is this:

Nor have I derived any of my ideas on this from "CRT".

That has nothing to do with whether I "know" some people associated with CRT favor regulating hate speech. It simply means, my thoughts are my own. I didn't "learn" this from anyone in particular. I thought it.

I've seen hate speech in action. I understand that it is harmful to the individuals targeted by it.

I also understand it is harmful to basic notions of a democratic society in which all citizens are admitted as equal members, with equal rights to the protections and privileges accorded to all community members. Hate speech implicitly denies full membership to society to the target groups. It says "You do not belong. You are not one of us. You are not fully human. You should expect to be attacked verbally by those of us who are. The more you are attacked, the more acceptable it will be for you to be attacked further. And once there's enough approval for verbal attacks, you should expect that physical violence will follow."

I see no benefit in preserving the freedom to indulge in hate speech. Only harm. So why allow something that:

1. Does significant harm.

and

2. Provides no benefits consistent with democratic society.

Why? Because the U.S. devotion to "free speech" at any cost is an irrational fetish, a prolongation of the "rugged individualist, you're not the boss of me" mentality that defines simplistic libertarian perspectives, and imposes a kneejerk hostility to any sort of collective action (because we are all rugged individuals, don't you know).

Tom

[Osborne Russell]

No it doesn't say you aren't one of us. It says you are. It says your conduct is punishable, precisely because you are one of us.

Provides no benefits consistent with democratic society.

Freedom of conscience is a benefit to the group and a right of the individual . . . it is a benefit to the group because it is a right of the individual.

Without freedom of conscience, there is no conscientious choice; which is beneficial beyond measure. It shall govern actions.

The question I would pose to an Islamic fundamentalist (or Christian, or any fundamentalist): coming before God on judgment day, what would you rather say, I tried to help this one sinner out of sin, and lead him to you, though in large part I failed . . .

. . . or, I killed a thousand unbelievers, as a result of which, they never had the chance to exercise the one crucial faculty with which you endowed them, for the very purpose?

The imagery is MEM; the principle is not. The conscience is a natural phenomenon, the essence of moral human nature. Freedom denied, the conscience has no scope. The leash is too short.

The freedom to choose is essential to truly making the right choice, for the right reasons. It's the only way that right can come from within. CRT would impose it from outside, by the power of the state. Department of Anti-Racism?

MEM says freedom of conscience is necessary for a human to turn to the one true God. Liberalism says it is necessary for the dignity of man, essential to human society, without which there can be no peace, not for you, as you dream of it, nor for anyone, as they dream of it, as you must realize they do, same as you, human. That MEM is mistaken does not mean that liberalism is mistaken. In fact, thoughtful people may say, screw history, there is no difference, no conflict; not in this regard.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that men are endowed by their creator . . .

[Peerie Maa]

Where did science "originate"? When a chimp found that a thick twig wouldn't go in the hole to get the ants, and switched to a thin twig? And thereafter used a thin twig? I don't know about when or where. The important thing is that it's here now.

And like science, natural rights are drawn conceptually from nature. The "law" of gravity isn't nature, it's a conception drawn from nature. That's where it "originates" in the human ability to conceive, and from practical necessity.

The chimp wants the ants. We want a way to order our society. From nature we draw the observation that nature does not create a right to rule in some individuals and the obligation to submit in others. Yet there must be rules and rulers.

You can, and should, test the hypothesis of natural rights constantly.

That's what I call the "material" side. Upon that foundation, a system of morals is built.

You misunderstand my metaphor.
.
The laws of science came with the way our universe came into being. It only took 13.8 billion years for a supposedly intelligent life form to start to understand them.
They have existed as an implicit part of the Universe since our singularity popped into being. Different singularities can exist with different laws, but the result would not support life. Look up the Anthropic Principle.

So did Universal Human Rights originate with primates? Or with social animals like meerkats or wolves, or from somewhere else?
But you appear to be saying that Universal Human Rights are a human construct. Am I correct?

In which case, they are only what society agrees them to be today. No more, no less.

By the way, it is likely that our hierarchical social structure is an evolutionary artefact from our primate ancestry. Troops and clans have a pecking order with a chief serang and subordinates. The troop does better with a stronger, brighter leader. As with other social animals, so with us. We want kings or presidents or dictators.
As we developed better communications, and could afford to support people who did nothing other than think, we came up with concepts like the Magna Carta, and Tomas Pain's ideas, which caught on because they made society better.

Any way, you have settled my doubts on why you think the way you do.

[Osborne Russell]

. . . you appear to be saying that Universal Human Rights are a human construct. Am I correct

Yes, of course. They have to do with humanity.

In which case, they are only what society agrees them to be today. No more, no less.

No less. More, to be sure. Unless and until a better formulation comes along, this shall be the law. That's where we're at. That's how it is with science. The airplane pilot says, I have points to raise with Newton.

By the way, it is likely that our hierarchical social structure is an evolutionary artefact from our primate ancestry. Troops and clans have a pecking order with a chief serang and subordinates. The troop does better with a stronger, brighter leader. As with other social animals, so with us. We want kings or presidents or dictators.
As we developed better communications, and could afford to support people who did nothing other than think, we came up with concepts like the Magna Carta, and Tomas Pain's ideas, which caught on because they made society better.

Ok. The troop does better with a hierarch, and a hierarchical leader . . . maybe. In primitive consitions. Not always. The defects became apparent, quickly. One guy is "The Great", the next is "The Unready". So what did "we" think about, in the meantime, and why? Before someone gave voice to our ideas? Was it not intimately connected with their lives, as they understood them? Their experience as "social animals in troops and clans"? Their aspirations? In that context, better in what way? How many people said, this pecking order is bull S? Before Magna Carta, etc? Why were people so disposed ?

Any way, you have settled my doubts on why you think the way you do.

Likewise.

[Canoeyawl]

Right is what it's about.

Might is what it's about

[WI-Tom]

No it doesn't say you aren't one of us. It says you are. It says your conduct is punishable, precisely because you are one of us.

What does this even mean? The "it" you seem to be referring to, in my post, is "hate speech."

Hate speech does not say "You are one of us." Quite the opposite.

It doesn't say "Your conduct is punishable"--because it's not motivated by the conduct of the people it targets. It's motivated by an irrational hatred of the people it targets because they are members of a group deemed "other." This is the essence of hate speech--"You are other. You do not belong. I am free to attack you verbally because I do belong, and you don't. And as you experience my verbal hatred, which I am allowed to target you with, you will come more and more to understand that you are not one of us, never will be, and can be freely harassed and attacked. Which will become so routine and acceptable that soon enough it will be routine and acceptable to attack you physically as well."

Again, in a response to me, though, you start talking about CRT. Which I have never mentioned in connection to this issue.

You really don't seem to understand anything I post. I don't think you're actually trying to understand anyone's positions but your own.

You have your own fetishes, I guess. Anyone who sees things differently than you do is labelled "woke" or "CRT" or, your usual, "an enemy of liberalism."

Tom

[Peerie Maa]

Yes, of course. They have to do with humanity.





No less. More, to be sure. Unless and until a better formulation comes along, this shall be the law. That's where we're at

In which case, you have no justification for saying that your pet system is the only valid system. Freedom of speech is not an absolute, all encompassing, inviolate right. It is defined by society and will be changed by society.
Your opinion is an outlier.

[Peerie Maa]

Ok. The troop does better with a hierarch, and a hierarchical leader . . . maybe. In primitive consitions. Not always. The defects became apparent, quickly. One guy is "The Great", the next is "The Unready". So what did "we" think about, in the meantime, and why? Before someone gave voice to our ideas? Was it not intimately connected with their lives, as they understood them? Their experience as "social animals in troops and clans"? Their aspirations? In that context, better in what way? How many people said, this pecking order is bull S? Before Magna Carta, etc? Why were people so disposed ?

Missing the point as a debating technique?

Troops and clans do better in what way?
Better access to food by driving off competitors, for starters. The more territory your strong leader facilitates, the more resources the clan controls and the more comfortable their lives. Duh!

No one says "this pecking order is BS" except as a political dog whistle intended to replace the current chief serang by their own chief serang.
Why were people so disposed ?
Disposed for what? To put up with it, or to change it?
They put up with it because it worked, - until it no longer did so. Then it was changed.
English feudal serfs put up with the system while the contract delivered an acceptable lifestyle. Then the Plague changed the dynamic and it all changed.

[Osborne Russell]

That has nothing to do with whether I "know" some people associated with CRT favor regulating hate speech. It simply means, my thoughts are my own. I didn't "learn" this from anyone in particular. I thought it.

You come close to quoting CRT authors on the topic and even statutes near verbatim. Hard to believe you haven't drawn from them since the original insight. For example, you write:

I also understand it is harmful to basic notions of a democratic society in which all citizens are admitted as equal members, with equal rights to the protections and privileges accorded to all community members. Hate speech implicitly denies full membership to society to the target groups. It says "You do not belong. You are not one of us. You are not fully human. You should expect to be attacked verbally by those of us who are. The more you are attacked, the more acceptable it will be for you to be attacked further. And once there's enough approval for verbal attacks, you should expect that physical violence will follow."

And:

I see no benefit in preserving the freedom to indulge in hate speech.

There are several centuries of writings describing the benefits. Is your categorical rejection of these writings also original to you? Funny, it's exactly what CRT says. And woke says what CRT says.

[Osborne Russell]

What does this even mean? The "it" you seem to be referring to, in my post, is "hate speech."

You're right, I didn't write that right. Sorry. I was referring to the curbing of hate speech.

[Osborne Russell]

Might is what it's about

What makes might right.

[Osborne Russell]

Missing the point as a debating technique?

Troops and clans do better in what way?
Better access to food by driving off competitors, for starters. The more territory your strong leader facilitates, the more resources the clan controls and the more comfortable their lives. Duh!Troops and clans do not always do better.

Nowadays troops and clans are crushed by nations.

No one says "this pecking order is BS" except as a political dog whistle intended to replace the current chief serang by their own chief serang.

Radically oversimplifying history as a debating technique?

Why were people so disposed ?
Disposed for what? To put up with it, or to change it?
They put up with it because it worked, - until it no longer did so. Then it was changed.
English feudal serfs put up with the system while the contract delivered an acceptable lifestyle. Then the Plague changed the dynamic and it all changed.

Are you saying that the evolution of thinking about government contains no moral aspects, that it's strictly a matter of pursuing material gain?

Various forms did not in fact "work" morally and that is in fact the reason why they were overthrown.

.

[WI-Tom]

You come close to quoting CRT authors on the topic and even statutes near verbatim. Hard to believe you haven't drawn from them since the original insight.

Believe what you want, but I didn't draw from CRT whatsoever. Much of what I've posted here is the result of reading Jeremy Waldron's book The Harm In Hate Speech, back in November 2021 if I remember right. It made a lot of sense to me, as he contrasts the way pretty much every other Western nation deals with hate speech, compared to the U.S. I don't even have that book with me in Poland so I haven't been quoting from it, but I'm sure many of the ideas are my interpretation of points he raised in that book.

As far as your comment that there are "several centuries of writings describing the benefits"--no, I don't think so. There are no benefits to hate speech, unless one counts the denial of full secure membership to certain groups deemed "other" as a benefit. I don't.

There are certainly benefits to preserving a right to free speech. But that right need not be extended to speech that is actually harmful, both to individuals and to the warp and weft of democratic society as a whole. The idea that sensible restrictions to hate speech can be effectively imposed, without destroying the right to free speech itself, is the main thrust of Waldron's argument from what I recall. And I think he's right about that. Other nations do it.

Why doesn't the U.S. do likewise? Because of the fetish that is the topic of this thread.

Tom

[Peerie Maa]

Nowadays troops and clans are crushed by nations.

and? How is that relevant to my answer to your question?

Radically oversimplifying history as a debating technique?

Nope, telling it like it is.

Are you saying that the evolution of thinking about government contains no moral aspects, that it's strictly a matter of pursuing material gain?
Various forms did not in fact "work" morally and that is in fact the reason why they were overthrown.

That depends on the politicians doing the thinking.
Even Paine and his "Rights of man" so lauded by the government of the US of A (and, I suppose, yourself) was not applied by the US government to black Africans. So where was the morality of that government? Until Clarkson and Wilberforce injected some morality in to the UK parliament, it was more about money and trade, on both sides of the Atlantic.

I cannot think of any government overthrown on "moral" grounds, it is always unrest driven by poverty or oppression.
As with the US of A's lack of morality over killing school children, if Joe the Plumber is living an OK life, he is supremely disinterested in the "morality" of his government.

[Keith Wilson]

Cynicism is healthy in small doses, very bad for you in excess.

[Peerie Maa]

Cynicism is healthy in small doses, very bad for you in excess.

There is a very old adage, Every country has the government it deserves.

• Original text:
  Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.
• Letter 76, on the topic of Russia's new constitutional laws (27 August 1811); published in Lettres et Opuscules. Joseph de Maistre.