760
...I will defend to the death your right to say it.
(lemmy.world)
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful.. As soon as you start allowing the gov't to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it's the actions that can arise from the words.
You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.
This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.
There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.
It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.
This isn't about the paradox of tolerance; the paradox of tolerance refers to a social contract, not a legal framework.
You have the legal right to spew hate and vicious trash. You do NOT have the right to be free of social opprobrium should you do so. As soon as you start legally limiting speech based on what you think is acceptable, you create a legal framework for other people to do the same.
Nobody said it was a legal framework. I am applying the paradox to how we should frame it legally.
The rest of your argument was already covered in my post.
The paradox of tolerance is a concept, not a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls':
Sacrificing freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one's mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty.
This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.
You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that.
I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.
Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they're fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.
From context
and key words
and my direct statement
I'm stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one's mind doesn't cause harm. Harm requires an act.
Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl's conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.
Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.
By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?
Complaining about semantics isn't the argument you think it is. Meanings & distinctions matter.
The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice. If you're willing to undermine rights for expressions that won't actually harm/threaten, then I don't care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.
No & already answered.
I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government. Make sure you lock the door in your ivory tower behind you.
I question your reading comprehension. It's much easier to claim something causes harm than to demonstrate it would.
History doesn't support your assumptions: recalling the civil rights & free speech movements in the US, civil rights advanced despite similar free speech constraints I've advocated (eg, clear & present danger or imminent lawless action standard) and despite a harsher environment with Jim Crow laws and white supremacists speaking freely. Civil rights can advance with such narrow restrictions on free speech and have before when circumstances were worse.
This is a contradiction. Something isn't a right if you allow open season for others to actively target and suppress.
Otherwise, Stalinism is also technically "free speech": you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences.
Be clear about what you mean.
It's actually perfectly simple and not contradictory as long as you don't conflate basic rights and absolute impunity.
Having the right to say something abhorrent without the government punishing you for it ≠ having the privilege to say whatever you want and face no consequences.
Conflating the two to the point of censoring dissent is how fascism, anarcho-capitalism, Stalinism, and other inherently abusive ideologies that look attractive to some when not closely examined take root and thrive.
This is like saying guns don't kill people
Automatic sentient guns, that's what kills people.
Oh and people who happen to use guns to kill others
Pull a trigger in the air without a gun, and see how many you kill.
The gun is an extension of the user - without the gun, you cannot shoot, just as without a person the gun won't shoot.
Same is the case for words. They didn't come out of the aether into existence, and when spoken carry the will of the speaker inherently.
It's not "just words", it can be malice or hate given form - that is, after all, the point of communication; to give form of what you desire or think to others.
The tool you use to kill is irrelevant, because the tool has no intent. Mens rea is, with the exception of a very, very few strict liability crimes, a requirement for an action to be criminal. A tool can not have intent.
Setting aside that the discussion was never a legal one (and either way, what is legal does not mean is moral);
The tool is still very relevant. If you have the intent to kill many but only a stick, you probably won't get as far because sticks are not as dangerous as guns, or even words for that matter, when used.
I see you haven't been paying a lot of attention to the news.
Thanks for the strawman, I see now you're arguing in bad faith (or are one of those Americans hyper focused on guns)
Oh, look, an ad hominem. Cool.
Firearms are not, themselves, the problem, despite however much people want to treat them as though they are. Likewise, in the UK, kitchen knives and scissors are not the problem, although the gov't treats them as though they are.
Guns, knives, sticks, cars, and yes, even explosives, are tools. If you eliminate the causes that turn people to violence, you eliminate the use of the tools to commit violent acts. But no one is willing to discuss violence as a result of things like economic warfare or systemic racism; they insist that violence exists because the tools used in violent acts exist.
The discussion was never about the guns, dumdum (this, btw, is an ad hominem)
This you?
Still missing the point.
The criticism was on your "words don't kill people" part.
Neither guns nor words spawn out of nothing.