Only listening carefully and employing empathy will tell us if a social movement is the result of people's untold pain and suffering from verbal abuse or is simply people being extreme narcissists who believe that they are entitled to freedom from any words that they do not like or approve of. I don't sense that there is much of the latter going on, so I don't see what there is to be scared of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you've missed the point of the question. Everyone has already done the calculation you've outlined (genuine suffering vs. narcissism), they've come up with different results so the question is where do we go from here? How do we now move forward when some people think those claiming offence are genuinely suffering but others think they're being overly narcissistic?

I could be wrong, but I think that it is safe to say that words--as in everyday, ho-hum exchanges, not just the exchange of ideas in political and scholarly contexts--can be very harmful and do a lot of psychological damage. If we acknowledge that words can damage a psyche and cause a lot of suffering just like pollution can damage lungs and cause a lot of suffering, that completely changes the nature of the issue. It takes us from what people do or do not like / approve of to what does or does not harm people and cause avoidable suffering. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Words have absolutely zero inherent power to cause anybody harm or suffering. Words are nothing but verbal representations of thoughts. Can you hurt someone with your thoughts?

When you verbalize your thoughts, you are essentially giving them to whoever is listening to do with as they please. Can that person take your thoughts/words and inflict pain or psychological damage on himself? Sure, but you aren't responsible for how another person uses your thoughts/words. If you give a person a hammer and they slam it down on their own hand, breaking it, are you responsible for their broken hand? Of course not.

"Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him."
- Epictetus

What's worse, hurt feelings or political censorship?

It depends on the extent of both, which is why we need to at least attempt some objectivity in our assessment of each (which is why I objected to WPoMo's suggestion that we all just need to be empathetic).

If the expression of political opinion is (or had a justifiable chance) of causing actual harm then I cannot see any argument that it should be allowed. It is not inviolable and I don't see any reason why freedom of speech should be the top of our list of freedoms.

Hurt feelings can lead to actual harm by psychological trauma or suicide, so there's no question about the possibility.

That means the remaining question (unless you want to argue that freedom of speech is inviolable under all circumstances) is whether the expressions in question actually are causing genuine harm. I think this is something that can be approached objectively. Has the suicide rate gone down with increasing political correctness? - no. Has the rate of therapy admissions gone down with the rising intolerance of bawdy language in the workplace? - no. We could go on.

Its not that I think it's impossible for there to exist a situation where the harms from free speech outweigh the right to it, it's just that I don't think the examples that have been talked about recently objectively are such cases.

It is not inviolable and I don't see any reason why freedom of speech should be the top of our list of freedoms. — Pseudonym

Because if you don't have freedom of speech then you might not be able to acquire new or guarantee pre-existing rights. Russia or Uganda will send you to prison for publishing anything construable as pro-gay-propaganda because it suits the feelings of the people (people too stupid to afford democracy the respect it requires), and this is likely setting back acceptance of gays markedly.

If Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, then Democracy with no free speech is tyranny where you're not even allowed to whine about it.

Hurt feelings can lead to actual harm by psychological trauma or suicide, so there's no question about the possibility. — Pseudonym

I see people using this argument very lightly, and they (you) really shouldn't. If you suspect someone might be a suicide risk, (for example, if them getting their feelings hurt could be their last straw), then serious intervention/assistance should be offered to that person. A part of being free means being responsible for one's self, and merely being offended because of a political opinion that someone else expressed falls well within the "deal with it" category. Democracy requires we tolerate the political opinions of others.

When it comes to outright harassment, we actually have anti-harassment laws which are more than adequate to deal with anyone who consistently emotionally badgers a particular individual.

But even if we do try to determine which political opinions we should outright disallow, do you have any bright ideas? Would you be the one to accept the position of deciding what is o.k and not o.k to express politically?

I'll give you a great contemporary example that actually somewhat applies to me: The black lives matter movement takes the position that violence done to black men by cops is the worst problem facing the black community, and that it is white privilege and racism which create this reality. For me to contradict their position is literally and emotionally interpreted by them as racism. I could choose to say nothing for fear of hurting too many feelings, but if I don't then I think there's a higher chance laws will be passed which are not only counter-productive to the general impoverished black community, but will be outright detrimental to everyone (including them).

Interestingly this kind of ultra-sensitive "to deny the white patriarchy IS white patriarchy" style identity politics can only thrive in an environment where everyone's feelings are coddled to begin with; it makes them emotionally weak; lacking thick skin. If everyone had thicker skin we could have emotional discussions about controversial topics without everyone flying off the objective handle...

Because if you don't have freedom of speech then you might not be able to acquire new or guarantee pre-existing rights. Russia or Uganda will send you to prison for publishing anything construable as pro-gay-propaganda because it suits the feelings of the people (people too stupid to afford democracy the respect it requires), and this is likely setting back acceptance of gays markedly. — VagabondSpectre

You've given me a reason why freedom of speech is an incredibly important right, I asked for a reason why it might be considered more important than any other. Such an argument would require not just the presentation of the bad things that can happen when the right is removed, but a demonstration that they are somehow worse than what happens when any competing rights are removed. That's what I mean by adding some objectivity to this debate, at the moment it's too reliant on polemics.

I see people using this argument very lightly, and they (you) really shouldn't. If you suspect someone might be a suicide risk, (for example, if them getting their feelings hurt could be their last straw), then serious intervention/assistance should be offered to that person. A part of being free means being responsible for one's self, and merely being offended because of a political opinion that someone else expressed falls well within the "deal with it" category. Democracy requires we tolerate the political opinions of others. — VagabondSpectre

If you read my argument carefully, I'm using this form of cause and consequence to indicate that actual harm can result from insult. It's a philosophical point, establishing the parameters of what it is reasonable to argue. This is something which is essential in any professional discussion on ethics, but for doing which I'm constantly being misrepresented on this site. I don't suppose many people here have actually sat on ethics committees, but establishing the parameters is pretty much the first job. I'm merely stating that it is a reasonable proposition that insults can lead to direct physical harm and so a utilitarian approach could reasonably argue that these harms need to be accounted for. I'm not giving psychological advice on how to approach suicide victims.

When it comes to outright harassment, we actually have anti-harassment laws which are more than adequate to deal with anyone who consistently emotionally badgers a particular individual. — VagabondSpectre

Again this is a misleading line of argument in ethics. What we have laws for and what is ethically right/wrong are two entirely different, and often unrelated, things. The argument ethically is whether we have a right to restrict freedom of speech in order to avoid offending people, not whether we have already done so and enshrined such a restriction in law. The law might be wrong, it might not go far enough, or go too far, such discussions are how laws are made/altered in the first place. The question for this debate is whether you agree that anti-harassment laws are morally acceptable. If you do then you have agreed that there are circumstances where someone's right to speak as they see fit is outweighed by the harm it is evidently doing a person. As I said explicitly above, the matter then is a practical one of establishing the harm caused, as we have already agreed on the principle that some harms justify a restriction on free-speech.

But even if we do try to determine which political opinions we should outright disallow, do you have any bright ideas? Would you be the one to accept the position of deciding what is o.k and not o.k to express politically? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, and yes. That's the duty of any moral agent, we cannot simply absolve responsibility because the question is hard, we have to decide, and it is each person's duty to do so and to do what they can to persuade others of their position (if they think some harm might come from the position others currently hold). I fail to see how our duty to avoid allowing others to suffer could possibly be outweighed by our duty to be humble in the face of our uncertainty on any complicated moral decision.

As to how to determine such things, as I have outlined above, we have some small objective measures which we can bring to bear. It is unlikely that failure to be politically correct actually increases suicide risk, for example, because if it did we would have seen a lowering of the suicide rate over the last few years and we have seen the opposite.

Taking your example;

The black lives matter movement takes the position that violence done to black men by cops is the worst problem facing the black community, — VagabondSpectre

this is an objectively verifiable fact, by some metric, they are either right or wrong about this.

For me to contradict their position is literally and emotionally interpreted by them as racism. — VagabondSpectre

this is surely their prerogative as much as it is yours to state your views, you haven't specified any extent to which they're using force to restrict your freedom of speech here.

I could choose to say nothing for fear of hurting too many feelings, but if I don't then I think there's a higher chance laws will be passed which are not only counter-productive to the general impoverished black community, but will be outright detrimental to everyone (including them). — VagabondSpectre

The key here is that you think there is a 'higher chance' of harm from not saying anything. You have made an assessment of the net value of your speech and acted accordingly. That's not the same as saying the people should be allowed to speak as they wish regardless of any such assessment.

If everyone had thicker skin we could have emotional discussions about controversial topics without everyone flying off the objective handle... — VagabondSpectre

This is a reasonable sentiment, but you've failed to demonstrate either that it is the case, or that 'coddling' as you put is is responsible for the lack of a 'thick skin'. We can approach both issues with psychological experiment and insight, but we cannot simply presume either is the case based on personal experience alone. It is an equally reasonable argument to say that if we lived in a society where people restricted their public expression to show respect for the feelings of others the resultant 'safe' environment would lead to more fruitful, less polemic debates.

It is obviously impossible to be morally wrong over having a panic attack, morals and panic attacks are not related. "Punching the air" is without the detail, as the detail is not for any rational reason required, I did a brief rapid arm routine over my head in celebration. No, that should not be outlawed, any more than walking along, or cleaning one`s teeth should be. The discussion which prompted this example you are already familiar with, or can be should you choose to refer back. I do n`t fall into this or that camp in terms of my beliefs, nor do I even necessarily recognize them all as viable notions of thinking. Ask me a question and I`ll answer it, but if you are still not sure at the end of that I`ll likely move on. You would have to deploy your own brain too though, for instance, when I made reference to having punched the air in celebration it conjored up in your mind my doing a straightforward boxers punch. Humans do n`t normally punch the air this way in celebration, it tends to being overhead, and it tends to not resembling a boxer`s punch. When I express points of view I do n`t expect to have to endlessly fill in all of the gaps. Teenagers take the direct route there, and so should you..
Justsome guy
Your response to me did n`t relate to the conversation, you simply made up the circumstances for yourself. It had just been put to us that slander should not be considered as being a crime. This was an example in response to that young lady.which was intended that she might reconsider her position, it is simple, and as well you know.. There is no mention of her spreading complaints, where is that? You know whom was spreading the complaints, I told you. The post which I reacted strongly to has since been taken down. It began, "Even if we are supposed to believe that she`d have a panic attack over you merely punching the air, prior to this, well, you already know what was said prior to this, so there is no point me repeating that post, also deleted, by you or by the moderators. Know, I`m not playing stupid immature games here, certainly not with you. If you find me misleading you are infinitely more so. Nobody is wholly here apart from our individual selves, perhaps a small fraction of another`s deceitful communication,, we are basically alone here, and alone to face the truth of ourselves..Even now there is deceit, putting down, and not accepting when another has been wronged, ego, ego ego, and this is why no actual philosophy will ever get done.

You've given me a reason why freedom of speech is an incredibly important right, I asked for a reason why it might be considered more important than any other. Such an argument would require not just the presentation of the bad things that can happen when the right is removed, but a demonstration that they are somehow worse than what happens when any competing rights are removed. That's what I mean by adding some objectivity to this debate, at the moment it's too reliant on polemics. — Pseudonym

Firstly, I did give a reason as to why freedom of speech (and of thought) might be more important than other rights: because it's required to guarantee that we're able to even talk about other rights, let alone fight for them in a democratic system.

Secondly, we're not talking about freedom of speech trumping any other right, we're talking about it trumping "the right to not be offended".

thirdly, I should be clear that I'm not a free speech absolutist, and I'm defending political speech, not all possible speech.

Moving forward let's try to be very clear about what we're actually debating: I'm explaining why free speech is at the top of the list, not why it's more important than any other right across all possible scenarios. Which right is most important depends on a changing spectrum of needs that society at large has. There's no objectively most important right, but since ignorance does seem widespread of late I think free speech happens to be quite important.

If you read my argument carefully, I'm using this form of cause and consequence to indicate that actual harm can result from insult. It's a philosophical point, establishing the parameters of what it is reasonable to argue. This is something which is essential in any professional discussion on ethics, but for doing which I'm constantly being misrepresented on this site. I don't suppose many people here have actually sat on ethics committees, but establishing the parameters is pretty much the first job. I'm merely stating that it is a reasonable proposition that insults can lead to direct physical harm and so a utilitarian approach could reasonably argue that these harms need to be accounted for. I'm not giving psychological advice on how to approach suicide victims. — Pseudonym

Is it reasonable to expect that someone will kill themselves because they got offended? Granted, it's possible, but just about anything can play roles in cause and consequences which are harmful. Driving a car comes with the risk of accidentally killing pedestrians or one's self, and we could sit around debating whether we should even be given the freedom to drive cars or walk on sidewalks, but it's not pragmatically feasible: we need to drive cars even though it kills people every single day, and we need to express our political opinions even though doing so may indirectly kill people every single day.

The only kind of "offense" that I can imagine driving someone to suicide is extreme harassment...

I'm not giving psychological advice on how to approach suicide victims. — Pseudonym

No but you're giving legislative advice on how to treat them based on a psychologically causative description, so I really don't see the difference...

Again this is a misleading line of argument in ethics. What we have laws for and what is ethically right/wrong are two entirely different, and often unrelated, things. The argument ethically is whether we have a right to restrict freedom of speech in order to avoid offending people, not whether we have already done so and enshrined such a restriction in law. The law might be wrong, it might not go far enough, or go too far, such discussions are how laws are made/altered in the first place. The question for this debate is whether you agree that anti-harassment laws are morally acceptable. If you do then you have agreed that there are circumstances where someone's right to speak as they see fit is outweighed by the harm it is evidently doing a person. As I said explicitly above, the matter then is a practical one of establishing the harm caused, as we have already agreed on the principle that some harms justify a restriction on free-speech. — Pseudonym

That wasn't a normative argument, just stating the fact that we currently have anti-harassment laws which handle the harmful forms of non-political speech that you state are immoral, so from a simple practical point of view, I don't see why we need additional "anti-offense" laws, especially when an individual's notion of "offensive" can be entirely irrational and subjective.

Courts presently determine on a case by case what constitutes harassment, that's where we draw our legislative and moral lines as a society, and I really don't see why we should lower the standard to "so and so was offended".

Yes, and yes. That's the duty of any moral agent, we cannot simply absolve responsibility because the question is hard, we have to decide, and it is each person's duty to do so and to do what they can to persuade others of their position (if they think some harm might come from the position others currently hold). I fail to see how our duty to avoid allowing others to suffer could possibly be outweighed by our duty to be humble in the face of our uncertainty on any complicated moral decision. — Pseudonym

So you will get to decide for everyone else what beliefs they are allowed to hold and express, for everyone's own good, because you know best... What happens when someone disagrees?

Perhaps we should all be free to think for ourselves and communicate what we think is right in order to ensure that we can come to un-coerced decisions? That's free speech.

this is an objectively verifiable fact, by some metric, they are either right or wrong about this. — Pseudonym

O.k, and when I say they're objectively wrong about this, some of them might say "Aha! You are proving our point by denying our lived experiences; you're oppressing me; I'm offended; etc.."

In this particular example, should I be allowed to state my truth? You did accept the position of arbiter of decency after-all...

this is surely their prerogative as much as it is yours to state your views, you haven't specified any extent to which they're using force to restrict your freedom of speech here. — Pseudonym

You're proposing moral imperatives upon which legislation can be derived. I'm suggesting that to use force to restrict my freedom of speech in this manner on the basis of "right to not be offended/harm caused by being offended" would be unjust. Furthermore, when they say things like "all white people are racist" I'm genuinely offended, and if I subscribed to the idea that my emotional reaction to their beliefs is more important than their right to express their beliefs then I could morally rebuke them (or one day call for legislation against them) in the first place.

The key here is that you think there is a 'higher chance' of harm from not saying anything. You have made an assessment of the net value of your speech and acted accordingly. That's not the same as saying the people should be allowed to speak as they wish regardless of any such assessment. — Pseudonym

Almost nobody is a free-speech absolutist, so please try to address the strong version of the position against "the right to not be offended".

My position is that merely being offended is not in and of itself harm worth considering when compared to more pressing harms, but furthermore that due to the subjective nature of offense taking, and the pragmatic impossibility of not ever offending anyone, it would be utterly futile to try and aim to never offend anyone. The only entities doing that are politicians and tv commercials. I also do think that being forbidden from expressing an honest belief is itself harmful at least to the same degree as being offended (people who're censored are well and truly offended; many of them have committed suicide).

This is a reasonable sentiment, but you've failed to demonstrate either that it is the case, or that 'coddling' as you put is is responsible for the lack of a 'thick skin'. We can approach both issues with psychological experiment and insight, but we cannot simply presume either is the case based on personal experience alone. It is an equally reasonable argument to say that if we lived in a society where people restricted their public expression to show respect for the feelings of others the resultant 'safe' environment would lead to more fruitful, less polemic debates. — Pseudonym

We've already seen the high water mark. Not oppressing/offending anybody turned into a political game of "who is the most offended/oppressed". We confuse being offended with being oppressed (like the idea that we should never offend someone for fear that they commit suicide) and it's beyond unreasonable.

Sometimes I just cannot participate in discussions where truth is a concern and also not offend people.

Of course there should not be a legal right not to be offended, as anybody can be offended by anyone at any time over anything, simple. If this is not adequate explanation for you to understand this as the reality then I`m only deeply sorry for you. Equally, of course there cannot be freedom of speech, if nothing else think of the implications for the under aged, and for children. Job done!.

As un said earlier in the thread, a small group like this forum, or any voluntary society, has rules about people's remarks not being offensive. I'm glad of them; to be frank I find people ruder online than I feel comfortable with, and sometimes I don't even come to this relatively civilised forum because some posters are more aggressive than I can handle.

I quite accept that there is no 'right not to be offended'.

There is nevertheless, among civilised people, normally a tacit rule that one is not rude to others. When people are aggressive in their arguments I suspect their rationality is flimsy. When people insist that their need to express their opinion is more important than their feeling of mutual respect towards other people, I doubt their goodwill. — mcdoodle

For some people, simply pointing out the logical fallacies in their argument qualifies as being aggressive. As I keep saying it is subjective. There are no objective rules as to what is offensive or not.

Even if no one complains about being offended, posts are deleted. They are deleted because there is the possibility that others might be offended. Trying to apply objective rules to something that is inherently subjective leads to the infringement on rights that we actually do have.

Saying that people have a right to be offended transfers the power to define the meaning of the words from the speaker/writer to the listener/reader. It no longer would be the intent of the speaker, and how they used the words, that would matter, rather it would be the intent of the listener that matters. The right to be offended would be the antithesis to the right to free speech. The "freedom" of your speech would be beholden to the greater freedom of some listener's interpretation of it.

It should also be noted that living in a society with free speech, being offended from time to time goes with the territory. Complaining about being offended in a free-speech-society is like complaining about the high insurance rates on your ocean-front property.

There cannot be a legal right not to be offended, because if anyone found it offensive, it would be an illegal law.

Firstly, I did give a reason as to why freedom of speech (and of thought) might be more important than other rights: because it's required to guarantee that we're able to even talk about other rights, let alone fight for them in a democratic system.

Secondly, we're not talking about freedom of speech trumping any other right, we're talking about it trumping "the right to not be offended". — VagabondSpectre

Right, so you've still not provided an argument for this. All you've done is move the objective. Now you need to provide an argument to show how "guarantee[ing] that we're able to even talk about other rights," and is a more important necessity then ensuring people are protected from the harm theoretically caused by views they find offensive. Do you have some evidence that the well-being of society will be more harmed by having some political speech restricted than by having it freely expressed, but potentially causing widespread offence? This is what I'm saying about the polemics, one side seems to be saying only that freedom of speech is really important, the other that insults can be harmful. Both of these are pretty well established facts, what's needed in this debate is some measure of the extent to which one outweighs the other.

I'm defending political speech, not all possible speech. — VagabondSpectre

That's a very subtle distinction to draw. Do you have a definition for what constitutes "political speech"?

Driving a car comes with the risk of accidentally killing pedestrians or one's self, and we could sit around debating whether we should even be given the freedom to drive cars or walk on sidewalks, but it's not pragmatically feasible: we need to drive cars even though it kills people every single day, and we need to express our political opinions even though doing so may indirectly kill people every single day. — VagabondSpectre

This is exactly the point of the discussion. We do recognise that driving is dangerous but necessary, but we do not respond to this state of affairs by simply saying that people should be free to drive wherever they want in whatever manner they want to. Restrictions are placed on people's ability to drive freely, because of the severity of the potential consequences. This is an exact mimic of the argument being had here. Everyone seems to agree that restrictions on freedom of speech need to be in place (the harassment laws as you point out), so the argument is whether the existing restrictions are sufficient. We have had the same debate about driving and the result has been that the restrictions on driving freely were not sever enough and we have subsequently reduced the speed limit further in urban areas. We're having exactly the same debate now, and the same two questions are relevant - What are the actual harms caused, and how much do we value avoiding them relative to the freedom we're considering restricting?

So you will get to decide for everyone else what beliefs they are allowed to hold and express, for everyone's own good, because you know best... What happens when someone disagrees? — VagabondSpectre

I didn't say I get to decide 'for everyone else', just that we must each accept our moral duty to decide what is right and act on it if necessary, not to equivocate and expect someone else to decide for us (the existing law, the judiciary, the bible... whatever). If you think the law is adequate, then state why you think that, just saying it must be moral because the law says it is is absolving your own moral responsibility.

Perhaps we should all be free to think for ourselves and communicate what we think is right in order to ensure that we can come to un-coerced decisions? That's free speech. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but you've still failed to demonstrate an advantage to that process which outweighs the harms it might cause. Is there evidence that we actually, as a society, come to decisions this way which increase our well-being sufficiently to outweigh the offence that having such open discussions may cause? Are we really going to gain anything by inviting the far-right speaker to the table to air his racism? Lots of people would be deeply offended by his political opinions, history shows us that we're very unlikely to come to any usefully different conclusions after hearing from him, so where's the benefit?

I'm generally in agreement that we should not legislate against offending people, what I dislike are the sloppy arguments used to defend this principle, they risk undermining an important position.

The freedom to express one's opinions (political or otherwise) has to be restricted because at some point in time, the benefits to society from having those opinions aired simply outweighs the harms from the offence.

Therefore, the only relevant questions to establish where this point is are;

How harmful is the offence taken? And; how much benefit is likely to accrue from the ideas being expressed?

I don't see either of these questions being addressed with evidence.

You are being extremely oversimplistic, in my humble opinion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I'm deliberately simplistic about rights because, outside of the legal domain, it's a very imprecise and flimsy concept that generates endless semantic quibbling. If you think you have a certain right, but the folks you're interacting with simply disagree, then you don't have the right. Everyone has veto power on that one. That's how I see it.

I think one has the right not to be murdered, and the fact that there are murderers means that this right is sometimes violated, not that it does not exist.

Importantly, you don't just think that, it's an actual legal right.

While we can all agree when some one is dead, it is quite different when it comes to whether or not someone was or was not offended, or needed to be offended. I think that unless 'giving offense' can be guided by objective principles its concept is too ambiguous, too relativistic, too liberal to be good or moral.

I'm having a tip-of-the-tongue reaction to your line of argument here. My sense is that the ability to perform the duties you're outlining, to balance benefits of free speech vs harms and hash it out, is actually contingent upon free speech in the first place. Free speech is a pre-requisite to reasonably evaluate and uphold other rights. It's the mechanism by which we achieve the other social goods.

I probably don't agree with you about the kinds of speech it's reasonable to restrict. e.g. I think the racists should be allowed to state their position. We have to live with them either way. Better to know what they're up to and have the chance to talk some of them out of it. I suspect the alternative is much worse.

I'd like to explore this claim if others are willing:
Those making the case to restrict free speech rely on free speech to make the case.

Agree or disagree? Is there any significance to this? I'm sensing something like a fundamental hierarchy to the structure of rights that just happens to be obscured by our vernacular. I'm not sure. If someone can help me untangle this, that'd be great.

I probably don't agree with you about the kinds of speech it's reasonable to restrict. e.g. I think the racists should be allowed to state their position. We have to live with them either way. Better to know what they're up to and have the chance to talk some of them out of it. I suspect the alternative is much worse. — Roke

I'd like to restrict them form teaching my kids their nonsense. I'd like them not to be treated by reputable media and educational bodies as if their views were worthy of serious consideration. I like that they are not allowed to express their position on this site. Same goes for flat-earther's; life's too short.

I'll just say it's very important to me that you're free to articulate that. You keep the racists out of teaching positions by exercising free speech, not by restricting it.

Not if it's an absolute. How's about something along the lines of "you can say whatever you like, but there will be consequences", which may include exclusion from teaching jobs or serving the public jobs, or broadcasting jobs, or entry to football matches, or being sued, or arrested for harassment, or being called an alt right apologist, or some such?

But if all these consequences amount to speech being unfree, and speech must be free absolutely, one of the consequences of that will be the undermining of the value of speech itself.

In my humble opinion, your concern and the discussion it creates distract us from clearer, but well-obscured, realities. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Your moniker is well-fitted (friendly tease).
A reality that is "well-obscured", but nevertheless still "clearer" is a condition indeed.

If we acknowledge that words can damage a psyche and cause a lot of suffering — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That acknowledgement is one of the items under examination.
1. If I verbalize content I know the hearer finds offensive, they suffer a damaged psyche.
2. If I verbalize content I don't know the hearer finds offensive, they suffer a damaged psyche.

From the point of view of the "hearer" of the content, what difference, if any, is there between 1 & 2?

It takes us from what people do or do not like / approve of to what does or does not harm people and cause avoidable suffering. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Not all agree that any mechanism, in this case speech, conveying content causes psychological harm to the point where otherwise "avoidable suffering" occurs. Even if true, does it require action on the part of third parties compelling the speaker to silence in pursuit of the avoidance of the other's "suffering"? I think that there are demonstrable incidents where the socially normative approach (the everyday ho-hum "ignore the haters" approach) is jumping the various "rights" or "action" categories.

You mention that "

it is safe to say that words--as in everyday, ho-hum exchanges, not just the exchange of ideas in political and scholarly contexts--can be very harmful and do a lot of psychological damage. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That is true, but it also does not oblige anyone else to do anything about silencing the exchange. The makeup of a differing psychology may already be "damaged" or may be more prone to being "damaged", whereas others may be more well-adjusted or resilient.

Clearly we can't just dismiss something as not being a right based on limited, biased things like our own culture's traditions, laws and values, even if the consequences scare us. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A softly worded assertion of the truth of relativism?
It sounds reasonable, but is it a sort of "law" in how it is applied? Or is it only a useful reasoning tool that can be employed to help uncover biases which would normally be undetected and influence a conclusion? Could one say the statement, taken as a tool of interaction to arrive at a common denominator of agreement, is itself a singular partition in the camp of "limited, biased things like our own culture's traditions, laws and values"? I see you wrote "Clearly we can't just dismiss something", which I take to mean "dismiss without investigation and reflection". But that does not guarantee that after a balanced, inclusive investigation and charitable reflection that something can't be dismissed.

A right is a justified claim...Rights depend on context. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So, in other words, would it be fair to say that context is the mechanism which justifies the claim of a right?

Only listening carefully and employing empathy will tell us if a social movement is the result of people's untold pain and suffering from verbal abuse... — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So the group consensus as a function of listening skills and empathic capability is the "context" which justifies another's right or the legitimacy of a "movement"? What if there is a dull, selfish, and oblivious population?
Minor quibble - I am unaware of any "social movement" resulting solely from verbal abuse. Are there any?

...or is simply people being extreme narcissists who believe that they are entitled to freedom from any words that they do not like or approve of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Could it also be possible that some members are part of both sets of categories? They are both narcissistic and part of a group that is persecuted? From a psychological approach, narcissism tends to be a dominant strategy in social hierarchies, especially newly formed ones with little sense or history of unified identities, which translates to (under certain conditions), the narcisissists getting to make the rules and/or make the demands for and/or give the communications for everyone else within the same group. Could that become, under certain circumstances, detrimental to both the bulk of remaining members of the persecuted group as well as for members outside of that group? It is with that dynamic that I think the original OP was written and don't find it to be simplistic at all in theory or practice. I think it is closely linked to the problem of "intolerant tolerance" and "tolerating intolerance" and what forms both concepts take in social structure and interaction.

Free speech is a pre-requisite to reasonably evaluate and uphold other rights. It's the mechanism by which we achieve the other social goods. — Roke

I don't think this is true, within the statement you've already made a couple of presumptions.

Firstly, that we should 'reasonably evaluate' rights. How are we going to enforce a 'reasonable' evaluation without preventing people from making claims which are unreasonable?

Second, that this is "the mechanism by which we achieve the other social goods". What cause do you have to believe that all discussions on rights are necessary to achieve social goods. It seems empirically the case that only those discussions likely to lead to an improvement in social goods are necessary. The others can be discarded without impacting on the benefits of the necessary discussions. Since we are, presumably, measuring 'social goods' by some metric, there will clearly be cases where all options brought to the table by some political opinions will fall short of that metric. How then is having the discussion necessary to bring about the social good?

Firstly, that we should 'reasonably evaluate' rights. How are we going to enforce a 'reasonable' evaluation without preventing people from making claims which are unreasonable? — Pseudonym

It's not possible to allow all reasonable claims while preventing all unreasonable claims. So, we have to be able to deal with unreasonable claims. What chance does a confused person have at being corrected if we prevent them from articulating their beliefs?

Second, that this is "the mechanism by which we achieve the other social goods". What cause do you have to believe that all discussions on rights are necessary to achieve social goods. — Pseudonym

I don't see how we'll determine which discussions are good and which are bad if they don't take place to begin with?

I'll give this some more thought, I'm not sure I've given you the most charitable read that I can come up with.

I'm not following your argument that a "discussion" is automatically necessary before arriving at a moral decision. I already know racism is bad, I don't need to discuss it beforehand, nor did I need to be taught it by discussion. I was taught it by example. So I'm failing to see why a racist need be allowed to publicly voice his political views (knowing as I do that many people will be deeply offended by them). We live in a society in which racism is routinely frowned upon. Unless this person has grown up in isolation somewhere, he will know full well that society considers racism wrong, he's not waiting for a good argument against it, he knows them all already and doesn't care.

I want to say I'm fine with this and that I'm content to draw the line at legislation. Corruption ensures there are still serious, related, problems but corruption is another matter.

All discussions don't need to take place, but the potential for them to take place is foundational. The lack of a discussion is also more meaningful if it's permitted. I believe you're missing my point, which is entirely my own fault, so I'll take some time to reflect on my position.

I'm not following your argument that a "discussion" is automatically necessary before arriving at a moral decision. I already know racism is bad, I don't need to discuss it beforehand, nor did I need to be taught it by discussion. — Pseudonym

It is likely the case that I agree with you. I too know that racism is bad, don't need to discuss it, and so on; EXCEPT that what one person means by racism may include much more than what someone else includes. That's why racism continues to be discussed.

Some people put so many different things under the terms of "sexist", "racist", "elitist" "misogynistic", and so on, that one has to spend considerable time and effort to clarify what is what. Discussions of racism end up revolving around the application of terms, rather than a common, dictionary meaning of racism.

Regarding shit holes: saying that African countries are shit holes because black Africans live there is racist. Saying that African countries are shit holes because they are poor, corrupt, lack access to capital, and have been subject to exploitative colonialism for a couple of hundred years is merely true. Claiming that American Indians are all drunks and Mexicans are all lazy are racial and ethnic slurs. Observing that whites, on average, are richer than American indians and Mexicans is only to observe reality.

Then, there are people who believe that some people are inferior because they are black. They qualify as racist. There follows then the question of whether it is permissible to hold such beliefs. Some will say it is permissible, however wrong the opinion is, others will say it is impermissible without respect to the freedom to hold wrong opinions.

But these definitions are not a problem so far as refusing to discuss certain political opinions is concerned. When you're comparing a theoretical "racists opinion" with a real-world need to discuss, of course the real-world example is going to appear more complicated, but comparing like with like, we very rarely encounter a person wishing to speak whose opinion we are not already vaguely aware of.

Racists, and there's no ambiguity about it, have shown absolutely no reasonable contribution to a discussion about the direction society should head in order to maximise well-being.

To those still considering the need to "include" all speakers in 'the debate', I'd ask why they are not including children in that. If you think a racist should not be banned from speaking on university campuses, then why are we not also inviting the opinion of three-year-olds, the clinically insane, the mentally retarded? We dismiss the involvement of huge sections of the community in 'the debate' all the time and we do so on the perfectly reasonable grounds that we can tell before they even start to speak that they will not have anything particularly constructive or useful to say. The same is true of people we can identify by their actions as being racist, more so, in fact. I'd rather hear more of the opinion of children and the mentally ill than from racists.

Much of this area is subjective, but some of this area is objective, that`s my position, to leave alone, broadly speaking. there exist a restricted right not to be offended, and this restricted right should be upheld. In conclusion then, in society the compromise position generally both works the best and is the most just.
Roke
One is only required to be human , surely, to already have an in depth instinct for how (full) freedom of speech would pan out, the time frame remaining the only real question. Sure, those that fancy children might still be outnumbered by those that do `t, just about, who knows, but they`d be very strong in their numbers, and coming out would explode. The concept of under age sex is far more popular with men than is currently claimed for, or for that matter even officially realized.. This circumstance alone could reduce a child`s safety a hundred fold. For engagement in such activities to occur it is enough for many individuals that only a given fresh hold .of back ground support is arrived at. One of course would be quite free to make inflammatory accusations, and they would become common place, many without a scrap of real world evidence. Why, because we have departed the world of logic, and adopted the world of our emotions. Killings, many of them of the innocent, would go through the roof, not to mention rioting on the streets. The time frame for given events, and actual numbers on the ground, now this is the only real question.. This is supposed to be a social philosophy thread, so we are supposed to have solid instincts. It makes for far briefer exchanges too. .