"physical assault can't be shown to be causal to any particular harm, because regardless of the assault in question, we could take two different people and expose them to the same assault and they'd react completely differently. — Baden

Which isn't true. If you punch two different people with equal force etc. in the same spot, they're not going to react completely differently. There will be similar physical effects. That would only be analogous if the punch results in one person bruising and the other person, say, getting rid of an old scar, with no other observable effect.

"If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you" — Mr Phil O'Sophy

If you anthropomorphize a ladle, the ladle will serve you.

We'd not be talking about how the person chooses (or habitually) responds to someone attempting to punch them. We're talking about what happens to their body when punched.

Someone who has conditioned his body to receive punches, is going to have a different bodily reaction that someone who has brittle bones or is a baby. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

They're not going to have a completely different reaction, so that, as I said, they may only get rid of an old scar. Regardless of who they are, the punch is going to have a similar effect on their body. It's not going to be an identical effect--hence why I didn't say identical, just similar. The punch is going to affect skin, muscle, etc. cells in similar ways, regardless of who they are. The difference is going to be of degree of effect, not type of effect.

@Terrapin Station You've got yourself in a muddle and are resorting to an absurd level of special pleading. An aggressive act (whether it be a speech act or a physical act) may be carried out with an intention to do a high degree of harm and may actually do a high degree of harm, and an aggressive act (whether it be a speech act or a physical act) may effect a very different level of harm depending on who the recipient of the act is. Combine those two facts and you have no way to make a clear enough distinction between speech acts and physical acts to justify completely absolving the former of the principle of rights and responsibilities, including legal responsibilities, while maintaining it for the latter.

you didn't say similar you said: — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yes I did. I wrote this: "Which isn't true. If you punch two different people with equal force etc. in the same spot, they're not going to react completely differently. There will be similar physical effects."

It's got to be that you're being dishonest. You can't possibly be that stupid to not be able to see the next sentence from what you quoted.

but the answer is clear. There bodies will react completely differently. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Okay, so what happens, re skin cells, muscle cells, etc. when you punch an MMA fighter with, say, a 5,000 newton force, where that's completely different than what happens to skin cells, muscle cells, etc. when you punch someone else with a 5,000 newton force?

Which part do you disagree with:

Two people's bodies can react completely differently to the same speech act.

Two people's bodies can not react completely differently to the same "physical" force, such as a punch, a knife stab, etc.?

You must disagree with one of those (given your comment above, that is)

Two people's bodies can not react completely differently to the same "physical" force, such as a punch — Terrapin Station

This is obviously false unless the word "completely" is mercilessly gerrymandered to fit your pre-determined position. I was going to give an example to explain why but I don't believe anyone but you at this point would continue to argue on the, to put it charitably, extremely tenuous basis you have been to try to establish the distinction you want to. So, we've probably said enough.

Completely differently--not anything in common, not at all the same type of reaction.

Versus a difference in degree, but not type of effect.

On the idea that speech is causal to harm.

A woman says to her husband, who doesn't at all understand German:

"Ich hasse dich. Ich habe seit zehn Jahren eine Affäre mit deinem Bruder. Dein Bruder ist der kleine Joey's Vater."

Does that hurt her husband? If speech is causal to harm, how could that not harm her husband (while it could maybe harm a husband who speeks German)? What are the physical differences in each case?

This is obviously false — Baden

Give an example of two people's bodies acting completely differently to the same "physical" force a la a punch, knife stab, etc.

Does that hurt her husband? If speech is causal to harm, how could that not harm her husband (while it could maybe harm a husband who speeks German)? What are the physical differences in each case? — Terrapin Station

Do a bit of reading. Words can have lasting physical effects in some circumstances*. That those circumstances may be more limited than the effects of physical trauma is a matter of degree not type therefore there is no justification for the absolute cleavage of speech acts from physical acts re the principle of rights and (legal) responsibilities.

*E.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201010/sticks-and-stones-hurtful-words-damage-the-brain

Give an example of two people's bodies acting completely differently to the same "physical" force a la a punch, knife stab, etc. — Terrapin Station

Tiresome. Do you not realize that a punch in the stomach of x power that could be enough to cause serious damage to the organs of, and even kill, a child may have little or no discernible physical effect on a professional boxer, for example?

Anyway, I'm done.

(Just to see off any potential strawmen. I'm not against free speech, only absolutism in the area. I think the U.S. has the balance about right.)

Tiresome. Do you not realize that a punch in the stomach of x power that could be enough to cause serious damage to the organs of and even kill a child may have little or no discernible physical effect on a professional boxer, for example? — Baden

I don't realize this because it's false. A punch of x newtons that can kill a child is not going to have zero effect on a professional boxer. That punch of x newtons still affects the skin cells, muscle cells etc. of the professional boxer. Heck, rubbing an emery board on your arm lightly is going to have a physical effect on the skin of your arm that we can see if we examine your skin cells closely--we do this sort of thing in forensics all the time.

Do a bit of reading. Words can have lasting physical effects in some circumstances*. That those circumstances may be more limited than the effects of physical trauma is a matter of degree not type — Baden

If this were true, then we could peg the exact physical effect in question, where that physical effect necessarily obtains in everyone subjected to the speech act in some degree, akin to being able to examine skin cells and see that there was a force applied.

So what physical effect are you claiming there for speech acts?

You'd have to be claiming some effect due to the soundwaves (for example) reaching your ears, proceding through your eardrums, etc., and for some speech to be okay and other speech to not be okay, you'd need to be claiming that certain combinations of phonemes have the effect that's not okay whereas other combinations of phonemes are okay, etc. That's what's physically going on during speech acts, at least insofar as the "perp's" actions go.

orrect. What there should be instead is a culture that doesn't believe things just because someone claims them. When you're officially prohibited from saying such things, then people tend to believe claims like that whether they're true or not. When we instead have a milieu where anyone is allowed to say whatever they like, then people don't believe things when all there is to them is a claim. That's bad news for religions, sleazy salespeople, con men, slanderers, false accusers, politicians, etc.--and even for people claiming what's essentially nonsense in the name of philosophy, science, etc. (which happens all the time, including right here in River City), and that's good news for us as a culture. — Terrapin Station

This is a dubious empirical claim. You're saying that if we allow people to lie with impunity, we will have a more dependable society because the heightened level of distrust will result in a more cautious populous. If everyone lives in fear of fraud, no one will be defrauded is your argument. As we know there are certainly societies where there are insufficient defamation laws or they do have them and there is limited enforcement of them, so you will need to produce the data supportive of your claim, which I've noted is an empirical claim, not simply a thought experiment.

All of this assumes, of course, that the reason that everyone's trust level is artificially high is because of the anti-defamation laws and such. That is, you have to buy into the also dubious suggestion that I, for example, am able to dupe people because they think to themselves, "Well, Hanover won't lie because he knows there's a defamation suit on the horizon for him." What I suspect is that most don't actually know what the defamation laws say. The real reason people don't lie, cheat, and steal, has less to do with government rules than personal morality, and regardless of what the laws say, fraud will continue to exist because some people will always be trustful based upon the assumption that others feel similarly morally bound.

And, while I may be beating this one to death, I'll also point out that your position goes far beyond simply permitting otherwise actionable defamation, but you seem to allow any and all types of false statements to be made without there being any form of relief available for the person lied to. That would abolish not only defamation suits, but also contractual suits, meaning that we could no longer contract with one another for anything with any expectation the other person would uphold his end of the bargain. The consequence of that would not be the ironically more honest society you envision, but it would be that no business transaction could be expected to occur.

I'd not allow contractual fraud, but that's an issue of contractual law, not a speech issue.

I'd not allow contractual fraud, but that's an issue of contractual law, not a speech issue. — Terrapin Station

What is the distinction, that one is uttered and one written? What of oral contracts? Why should I be expected to trust a statement that meets the definition of a contract (offer, acceptance, and consideration) as opposed to a statement that is missing one of those elements? It seems that if a more trustworthy populous is forged by allowing lying with impunity, we should allow lying in contracts, which are really just a particular type of speech act.

Contracts are formal agreements that each party is going to offer something in exchange for something else.

Contracts are formal agreements that each party is going to offer something in exchange for something else. — Terrapin Station

I said that in my post, so I'm not sure why you're repeating it. The question I asked was what makes dishonest contractual utterances properly subject to regulation but not non-contractual utterances. You felt compensation for damages were not appropriate for utterances generally, but you've now asserted a contracts exception and I'm asking why. Is there something in principle different about them, or is this just an ad hoc correction to your general anarchist rule related to free speech?

We should allow lying under oath too. What possible good could it do to put legal pressure on folks to tell the truth in a court of law? :chin:

The question I asked was what makes dishonest contractual utterances properly subject to regulation but not non-contractual utterances. — Hanover

Properly? What sort of question is that? I'm not saying anything about "properly."

Properly? What sort of question is that? I'm not saying anything about "properly." — Terrapin Station

Yes you are. You're saying that it's improper to regulate free speech generally, but that it's proper to regulate contracts specifically. Since contracts are a form of speech, I'm asking why the general category is not properly regulated but why a subcategory of that same class is properly regulated.

You're saying that it's improper to regulate free speech generally, but that it's proper to regulate contracts specifically. — Hanover

Where am I saying that?

You're saying that it's improper to regulate free speech generally, but that it's proper to regulate contracts specifically.
— Hanover

Where am I saying that? — Terrapin Station

As to where you're saying its improper to regulate free speech generally:

I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. — Terrapin Station

As to where you're saying it is proper to regulate contracts specifically:

'd not allow contractual fraud, but that's an issue of contractual law, not a speech issue — Terrapin Station

Do you not have a similar ability to scroll up and see what you've previously said? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with regard to whether you were truly trying to alleviate confusion as opposed to being purposefully evasive. I'm thinking I was being too generous

You may as well try and nail some jello to a wall.

The only way to understand one's own limitations on a topic is to hear what others say about it. In that respect, there should never be censorship, but only the absolute freedom to say.....and to hear what others feel compelled to utter in order to be understood.

But I didn't use the word "proper" anywhere, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying what I am/am not in favor of (well, and what I'd do "if I were king").

If anyone is unclear on what harmful speech is, it should be obvious that when anyone criticizes a group of people without any other reason than that they are different in ethnicity, gender or culture, it is hate speech. Any criticism against a group of people should be based on solid reasonable arguments that can't be disputed easily. — Christoffer

Just to point out, this is ending up discriminating against people for speaking at all about differences in ethnicity, gender, or culture. There is no clear line what constitutes criticism and what not.

But I didn't use the word "proper" anywhere, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying what I am/am not in favor of (well, and what I'd do "if I were king"). — Terrapin Station

Nor did I quote you as having said "proper," so I'm not sure what you're defending yourself against, nor am I even sure you know what you're defending yourself against. If you think I have in substance misstated something you've said, then point that out. At this point, your response is a silly quibble over form, arguing that a particular word in my post didn't appear in your post so it must be an inaccurate account of what you said.

The portion of your post beginning with the word "and" is entirely unresponsive to anything discussed, and suggests I thought something other than the views you were expressing were someone other than your own.

Just to point out, this is ending up discriminating against people for speaking at all about differences in ethnicity, gender, or culture. There is no clear line what constitutes criticism and what not. — ernestm

To clarify, a compliment is a reverse criticism. That really is the problem that keeps this debate going.