h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Consider a hypothetical situation:

A large minority of humanity (around 30%, or nearly 2,000,000,000 people) have views/beliefs that mean they would take *grave* offence if X is referred to in a manner that is not respectful. Never mind (for this thread) whether this is right or wrong; let's just accept that these people will react in this way, and that we know it in advance of doing anything like this.

In the light of the above, does your freedom of speech, or mine, permit us to refer to X in a disrespectful manner?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

In my opinion, yes.

Once you prohibit people from saying something about X, regardless of whether it's disrespectful or not, you have stopped free speech.

<>

what, like, "You fell out of a chickens bottom and your yolk is all runny!"


I would suggest that "freedom of speech" would allow it, regardless of the consequences, that is my *personal* interpretation of freedom of speech anyway, the freedom to say whatever you want. Wether it would be prudent to say, knowing the likely outcome, is a different question. There is a time and a place. Freedom of speech and common sense are different sides of the same coin.

For example, according to the premis of freedom of speech, I have the right to stand up and vocalise my support for animal testing, but I wouldn't neccesarily do this in the middle of an Animal Liberation Front meeting.

Yes. If freedom of speech is anything it is that we can air our views on X, Y or Z, no matter if those views we are expounding are set against the 99% majority, otherwise there can be no debate, as much as I loath the views of certain organisations and groups, I'll defend their right to have and state these views even though I don't agree with them.

Right on, 2legs!

Take Nick Griffin and Mark Collett for example. While I think it's right that they are in court for their ridiculous views, I also believe in their right to express those views.

THere is no such thing currently as unbounded free speech, and IMHO there is never likely to be.

Laws such as Libel and SLader are always going to prevent it, and I think most people (if they examine thngs carefully) owuld realise that it is necessary to have a degree of "boundries" of free speech.

Where these boundaries are is (in a liberal democracy) the question. I rather thing that it is entirely legitimate for a society to prohibit peoples freedom of speech where it is used for libelous or slanderous purposes.

I feel that it is also understandable in the cases of incitment to crime/harm and the profiting from these.

I fell it is less understandanble in relation to peoples lifestyle choices (religon being one).

"Laws such as Libel and SLader"

Interesting. What exactly do we think free speach (TM) means?

Does it mean the freedom to say anything you want *for any reason* or does it mean the freedom to express any opinion you want *as an opinion*.

Is there even a qualitative difference between the two?
Is there a difference between arguing "X have a priviliged position in the world and are all manipulative and greedy" and stating that as a firmly held believe in order to try and change that situation.
And where does it stand if all X really are as stated, but obviously don;t want anyone saying it so get mightily offended?

hypothetical? Why not call a spade space pattern-chaser?

hypothetical? Why not call a spade spade pattern-chaser?

To discuss the general principles, rather than any particular case, Arnie.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

People have responsibilities as well as rights, though too often the focus is on rights and not on responsibilities. John Stuart Mill drew a distinction between publishing a leaflet criticising the behaviour of corn merchants and standing in front of a corn merchant's house with a lighted torch and making a speech in front of a mob.

Freedom of speech is just one among a raft of freedoms that we'd expect to have in a liberal democracy. It's worth thinking about *why* we place such a high value on freedom of speech. Is it for instrinsic reasons (is it a good in its own right) or for instrumental reasons (is it good because of the consequences of allowing it) or a bit of both?

John Stuart Mill defended freedom of speech because he thought that open debate would lead us closer to truth - both in terms of politics and in terms of how we choose to live our own lives. Even if an established view is correct, it will do it good to be challenged, otherwise it will become dead dogma. Mill thought that only the danger of harm could outweigh freedom of speech, and he explicitly excluded 'offence' as a harm.

In arguments about freedom of speech, I tend to think about whether the particular controversial example of the exercise of freedom of speech advances the instrumental reasons for freedom of speech or not. I wouldn't neccesarily ban speech acts that didn't meet this test, but I'd be more likely to regard them as irresponsible.

Presumably I should not have the freedom to publish child pornography?

B

*Who* says all the members of a particular group would/should be 'gravely offended' by any particular thing?

One must make sure one is actually getting a representative view, not just the opinions of a few nutters and rabble-rousers who make enough noise to get journalists interested. After all, one wouldn't look at an extremist Christian joke like Stephen Green and assume him or his handful of rentagobs actually speak for all Christians in the UK.

How much responsibility do other people have for transmitting information about a supposed 'offence' and doing their best to make other people feel *obliged* to be offended?

Were I to tell a sexist joke, potentially very many members of the opposte sex could be ofended by it if they heard it, but if I tell the joke to a handful of people, and certain activists take it upon themselves to relentlessly spread the word around the world to try and make sure that as many people as possible are offended by what I've said, how responsible am *I* for any offence taken that depended on the actions of those activists, unless *possibly* if I expect that I am famous enough for everything from my words to my minor bowel movements to be habitually reported upon?

If the activists incite people to be offended and tell people:
"Look - that horrid Potholer was saying what he said to offend *you*", would they not be liars?


Finally, how much right does anyone have to get offended on behalf of *somebody else*? Taking offence by proxy seems to be a very good way towards incredibly dumb actions, when people feel they have the authority to take deep offence about something, yet feel they have no authority to forgive.
How responsible am *I* for someone else's stupidity?

<>

Neither you nor anybody else Ben as it is against the law - and for good reason. Or was that your idea of a sick joke?


az

No, Az. I'd assumed you knew me better than that.

There are boundaries to freedom of speech. I am trying to understand where they are.

So the boundaries of freedom of speech are legal, then?
Ben

It just sounded like the sort of thing Toxxin used to say, Ben.

Presumably all boundaries regarding freedom of speech are legal ones. Aren't they?


az

Freedom of speech is an odd concept. As I said elsewhere, it would seem to be one of those things which were when society was more unified, quite straightforward. Defamation is (in theory) illegal.

Denigrating people for characteristics such as race is immoral.

Beyond that, people are silenced for all sorts of reasons, depending on the constantly changing power of various subcultures. That's how it stands at the minute. Depending where you are, something perfectly non-controversial in 1985, can now be declared 'hate speech', (even though not actually illegal) and the speaker shunned, or worse.

Society has always comprised many sub-groups. Some in the ascendant now, weren't in the 1970s, and won't be in the 2030s. Others will. It's impossible to tell, at present.

Nice one, Della.

What are these 'subcultures' you keep alluding to all over the place? Who are their members?

Can you give an example of something perfectly non-controversial said in 1985 that is considered 'hate speech' today? Who was this 'shunned speaker'? You perhaps?


az

>> Presumably all boundaries regarding freedom of speech are legal ones. Aren't they?

I'd assumed not.

I'd assumed that proponents of First Ammendment style Freedom of Speech actually mean "Freedom of speech for everything except Child Pornography", thereby imposing a moral boundary.

So - do those people who claim to believe in Freedom of Speech believe in permitting Child Pornography?

Yeah, I know it's the Larry Flint question, (though he was an adult pornographer), but it IS an important question because it tests the sincereity, integrity and cohesiveness of arguments in favour of "Freedom of Speech".

B
(PS, I am not now, never have, and never will, do anything other than condemn child pornography. I don't want to keep on caveating my posts, so I'd rather just say it once, please).

Well, if those beliefs were 1500years old and had not altered one jot, were based on even older beliefs none of which they could provide any tenable proof then why not treat them in a 'disrepectful' manner. Of course, the phrase 'disrepectful' is in the eye of the disrepected isn't it.

Is it disrespectful to say 'Your beliefs are b*ll*cks' if that is exactly what you think AND you can put forward a better argument than them (especially when their argument tends to be 'If you don't agree with us we burn down your buildings and chop your heads off.') In some circumstances that latter is quite a forceful and good argument especially if they are your buildings and your head and I would fully agree with their beliefs until they were out of ear shot.

It is nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. Just read what some of these hypothetical people come back with i.e. they totally agree with freedom of speech because it allows them to spout hatred against other members of society because it is part of their beliefs BUT it is NOT freedom of speech to tell them their hate-filled beliefs are unacceptable as that would be offensive and an attack on their beliefs which are sacred.

AND another thing, should you be respectful of their beliefs when you are in your country and them in theirs when if you were in their country you would have to follow the laws(based on their beliefs) or you could end up in prison for simply holding hands or kissing in public. IS that being respectful to our beliefs? No, do we complain? No, if you are in their country you follow their rules or just don't go there which is the much safer option.

Hypothetically...