The actual consequence of speech are physical in nature: the expelling of breath, the subtle vibration of the air, the marking of pencil on a paper, and so on. All benign stuff and not worthy of suppression.

Any and all reactions to those benign activities are born in those that react to them, and thus a consequence of themselves.

Considering this, the phrase “freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences” is a goofy one at best, but a justification for censorship at worse. The idea that the world and posterity might lose a great work of literature because someone cannot control their rage is a tragedy.

The actual consequence of speech are physical in nature: the expelling of breath, the subtle vibration of the air, the marking of pencil on a paper, and so on. All benign stuff and not worthy of suppression.

Any and all reactions to those benign activities are born in those that react to them, and thus a consequence of themselves.

Considering this, the phrase “freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences” is a goofy one at best, but a justification for censorship at worse. — NOS4A2

This is an utterly pedantic and useless interpretation of the meaning of the word "consequence" in this context. Any normal person understands what is meant by the phrase "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences". It's a way of saying that even if it's not illegal for you to say something you're at risk of being shunned or fired or de-platformed etc. – and rightfully so.

It’s an utterly useless and contradictory phrase, not so different than “freedom of speech but not freedom from censorship”. Maybe come up with something better.

The actual consequence of speech are physical in nature: the expelling of breath, the subtle vibration of the air, the marking of pencil on a paper, and so on. All benign stuff and not worthy of suppression.

Any and all reactions to those benign activities are born in those that react to them, and thus a consequence of themselves.

Considering this, the phrase “freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences” is a goofy one at best, but a justification for censorship at worse. The idea that the world and posterity might lose a great work of literature because someone cannot control their rage is a tragedy. — NOS4A2

I don't like censorship, I don't like free speech either!

This is an utterly pedantic and useless interpretation of the meaning of the word "consequence" in this context. Any normal person understands what is meant by the phrase "freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences". It's a way of saying that even if it's not illegal for you to say something you're at risk of being shunned or fired or de-platformed etc. – and rightfully so. — Michael

I agree with all of this.

I agree with all of this.

You either believe in freedom of speech or you don’t. Censors should crawl out from under the rocks and be proud of who they are.

You either believe in freedom of speech or you don’t. Censors should crawl out from under the rocks and be proud of who they are. — NOS4A2

Is this one of those "arguments" you were talking about earlier?

Another question? Is this an interview?

Well said, truth is what we find after investigating enough and evaluating enough epistemic defeaters.

If certain hypothesis, bakground data and evidence are not to be discussed, then we can't claim to have found truth.

A relevant scenario:
*A politician has most likely been involved in the murder of a critical citizen because he was seen on a CCTV leaving the murder scene with bloody hands.
*The victims family tries to talk to the politician but he says he won't speak to them.
*The police has chosen not to investigate the crime properly(to protect the politician and his friends);
*The police tells the public no crime has been committed and the citizen must have died because of natural causes;
*The courts are expected to be corrupt and refuse to make logically correct inferences based on the evidence if the victim's family would try to do a private prosecution due to either bribed judges or judges who are afraid of consequences ;
*The media is corrupt and owned by the politician or friends of him and won't help the family.
*The victim's family members use their freedom of speech and start to speak out publicly that they suspect the politician to have been involved the murder of their family member and that the police, courts and media are all corrupt and protects the politician by not performing proper investigations as well as ignoring strong evidence.

The politician brings the victim's family members to court and sues them for defamation. He claims he is innocent based on the police's words that the victim must have died due to natural causes. It has hurt his feelings and reputation to hear that he is accused by the victim's family members, defamation laws exist to protect one's reputation and therefore the court should sentence the family members to pay him a big compensation as well as being thrown in jail for a year(he refers to their accusations as being extreme and has really hurt his feelings and reputation).

How would you help the victims family to argue for the right to freedom of speech on this matters?

The only legal right to "free speech" in our Great Republic addresses restriction of speech by the government.

So, other people, and any group or organization, may restrict speech as they please, without violating any legal right, provided they aren't government agents or agencies. They may boycott, they may shame,they may bully, they may condemn, they may prohibit others from speaking at their meetings or on their property or using their social media, provided they don't break the law.

We can claim that we have a non-legal right to free speech all we please; we may claim to have a right to anything we like for that matter, we may claim that "there ought to be a law" to no purpose. There's nothing to prevent us from seeking to restrict hateful, bigoted, stupid, speech provided we don't break the law, and there's no obligation that it be tolerated. There's no more reason to tolerate such speech than there is to tolerate such conduct.

There’s plenty of reasons why Socrates ought not have been censored, and his views tolerated.

Not only is it wrong to censor a man, kill him, for specious fears that he might corrupt the youth, but it is wrong to deny others the opportunity to hear him, the choice of which is no business of the censor’s.

Such actions also deny history and posterity the same opportunity—we will never know what other wisdom he might have shared if his views were tolerated. It is, as Mill said, to rob humanity.

Censorship weakens truth, as Milton said, by prohibiting and licensing her strength.

So it may be legal to engage in censorship, but there is plenty of reasons to tolerate views, at least more so than reasons to censor them, which is invariably premised on personal fears and other subjective feelings.

There’s plenty of reasons why Socrates ought not have been censored, and his views tolerated. — NOS4A2

Socrates was challenging the authority of the state, Athens. It was intentional. They gave him the opportunity to stop and he refused. Was Athens right? Maybe, maybe not. But imagine the harm done by Mr Trump saying our election system cannot be trusted.

“Imagine”…this is all the censor can do, imagine a future in which speech inflicts harm, corrupts the youth, but in all likelihood merely conflicts with his own views.

“Imagine”…this is all the censor can do, imagine a future in which speech inflicts harm, corrupts the youth, but in all likelihood merely conflicts with his own views. — NOS4A2

Trump using violence is hardly a trivial matter. His speech incites the violence and it is deliberate. By the way, new here. Are most people in England?

Trump using violence is hardly a trivial matter. His speech incites the violence and it is deliberate. By the way, new here. Are most people in England?

The “incitement” doctrine is an exercise in magical thinking, in my mind. If one can incite violence, one should be able to incite me to accept a contrary view, or perform any other activity for that matter. Can someone’s words make you commit violence?

The website is in English, is all I know.

Can someone’s words make you commit violence? — NOS4A2

Yes. Trials for these insurrectionists are arguing exactly that.

The trial of Socrates is an example of state action (prosecution sanctioned by the state). He was also accused for his association with Alcibiades, considered an enemy of the state, and with the Thirty Tyrants, an oligarchy imposed on Athens by Sparta led by Critias, the first cousin of Plato's Mom.

We should be concerned with government regulation and restriction of speech, and that concern may motivate and justify limits on governmental power even as to offensive speech. But otherwise, there's nothing about the flaunting of hate, or racism, or sexism which warrants their protection.

The actual consequence of speech are physical in nature: the expelling of breath, the subtle vibration of the air, the marking of pencil on a paper, and so on. All benign stuff and not worthy of suppression. ... Considering this, the phrase “freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences” is a goofy one at best, — NOS4A2

Ahahaha.

Seems like the fascists are not sending their best.

State censorship, mob censorship, church censorship—a distinction without a difference. We should be concerned about their censorship and for the same reasons. One act of censorship is a thousand-fold more destructive than any sentence ever uttered.

Many despots have suppressed views they don’t like, and no flaunting of power and priggery warrants its defense.

One act of censorship is a thousand-fold more destructive than any sentence ever uttered. — NOS4A2

And Putin gave the order, “Nuke the fuckers.”

That simple eh, , black'n'white rule-setting, so unlike ethics?
Examples to the contrary have been given, though.
Reduction to a trivial rule doesn't quite work.

, speech isn't all propositional; showed as much.

Freedom of expression is a starting point, but not really the end of it.
(I kind of like true speech myself, but that's not the end of it either.)

Returning to the article linked in the opening post, exposing hordes of crazies to the mad ramblings on Parler didn't sit well with Amazon, so they were told to go do their thing elsewhere.

(edited for content)

Good that you brought it up. It seems all arguments for/against free speech/censorship are those categorized as arguments from consequences.

So free speech or censorship = anarchy or oppression (consequences).

Why is life so complicated? :chin:

My point isn't that speech must be censored, but that there's no "right" to say whatever one wants, no matter how stupid, offensive, malicious, bigoted it may be. There's nothing about stupid, offensive, malicious, bigoted speech which renders it so worthy or so significant or so sacred that restriction of it is improper. For example, I have no "right" to say that Jews (or any other people) should be exterminated, or are subhuman. There's no obligation to consent to such things being said. In most cases people won't raise a fuss, knowing that malicious idiots abound and feeling that they're not worth the effort. But there's no moral or legal basis on which it can be legitimately maintained that such speech is unobjectionable.

My point isn't that speech must be censored, but that there's no "right" to say whatever one wants, no matter how stupid, offensive, malicious, bigoted it may be. — Ciceronianus

France has laws making it illegal to lie about the Armenian Genocide happening.. This is because Turkey spreads lies and propaganda and denies they committed genocide.

The moral and practical basis for free speech is well-established, well-argued, even ancient, especially where the legal basis has yet to catch up. The moral and practical basis for censorship, on the other hand, is utterly threadbare.

You do have the right because I and others bestow you that right. This right has little currency in a censorial and querulous culture, no doubt, and it’s not backed by any vested interest like a state or corporation, but it exists.

Similarly, there is no right to censor such views, nor any obligation to consent to censorship. This is why it is so odd to see so many try to undermine the principle of free speech but say nothing of censorship, premised as it is on its own kind of bigotry, hatred, and immorality.

France has laws making it illegal to lie about the Armenian Genocide happening.. This is because Turkey spreads lies and propaganda and denies they committed genocide.

Nothing could go wrong when the State has the right to determine historical truth and to punish dissent from it.

Nothing could go wrong when the State has the right to determine historical truth and to punish dissent from it. — NOS4A2

Whole world, every historian, says the Armenian Genocide is fact. There is no controversy. Just Turkey lying about their responsibility.

And so true is this fact that it is illegal to say otherwise.

The moral and practical basis for free speech is well-established, well-argued, even ancient, especially where the legal basis has yet to catch up. The moral and practical basis for censorship, on the other hand, is utterly threadbare. — NOS4A2

Do you have examples? The SEP article starts with:

The first thing to note in any sensible discussion of freedom of speech is that it will have to be limited. Every society places some limits on the exercise of speech because it always takes place within a context of competing values. In this sense, Stanley Fish is correct when he says that there is no such thing as free speech (in the sense of unlimited speech). Free speech is simply a useful term to focus our attention on a particular form of human interaction and the phrase is not meant to suggest that speech should never be limited. One does not have to fully agree with Fish when he says , “free speech in short, is not an independent value but a political prize” (1994,102) but it is the case that no society has existed where speech has not been limited to some extent.

You mentioned Mill earlier (and several times in the past), whom the SEP article also mentions:

It is true that many human rights documents give a prominent place to the right to speech and conscience, but such documents also place limits on what can be said because of the harm and offense that unlimited speech can cause, (I will discuss this in more detail later). Outside of the United States of America speech does not tend to have a specially protected status and it has to compete with other rights claims for our allegiance. John Stuart Mill, one of the great defenders of free speech, summarized these points in On Liberty, where he suggests that a struggle always takes place between the competing demands of authority and liberty. He claimed that we cannot have the latter without the former:

"All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed—by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. (1978, 5)"

The task, therefore, is not to argue for an unlimited domain of free speech; such a concept cannot be defended. Instead, we need to decide how much value we place on speech in relation to other important ideals such as privacy, security, democratic equality and the prevention of harm and there is nothing inherent to speech that suggests it must always win out in competition with these values. Speech is part of a package deal of social goods: “speech, in short, is never a value in and of itself but is always produced within the precincts of some assumed conception of the good” (Fish, 1994, 104).