The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech. — Terrapin Station

Well, dream on.

What qualification do you use--something vague like "harm"? — Terrapin Station

The clue was in my reply.

Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting people do what they want to do" as much as possible, within reason.

Well, and anyone can consider anything a harm to themselves, for any reason. So we can't just go with a blanket "harm" criterion. So then it becomes a matter of what someone wants to count versus what they don't want to count, which is really just an excuse to disallow stuff they don't personally like.

That’s what happens when one applies the harm principle to deeds that are not harmful. Hate speech is just the latest heresy to the latest orthodoxy.

How is it a decision or choice if there's only one option? — Terrapin Station

There isn't only one option. I think you need to backtrack and explain yourself properly before directing such loaded questions my way.

It's reasoned from my foundations — Terrapin Station

Then I think this (together with with your rampant sociopathy) is where we are irreconcilable. I just can't understand any foundational principle that's so convoluted. Most people have things like human well-being, getting to heaven, natural order (or what they perceive it to be). They then argue from there what actually constitutes any of those things and how best to achieve them. But to have as ones foundational position as a desire to let everyone do what they want to the maximum extent, even if that makes most people miserable. I just can't get my head around that.

Still - each to their own. Fortunately people like me (or vaguely like me) outnumber people like you significantly so we can force you to behave with a semblance of human compassion even if you don't want to.

It's reasoned from my foundations — Terrapin Station

Funnily enough, foundations in madness lead to more madness.

My speaking surely has consequences for me — NOS4A2

How does your speech have consequences for you. What is the mechanism by which those consequences come about?

The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech. — Terrapin Station

Just out of curiosity, if an Islamist acolyte of a preacher of hate and violence against infidels murdered those whom you most care about, you'd still see no problem with allowing hate speech? You'd be happy for the preacher to continue his nefarious activities unobstructed by pesky laws?

Then I think this (together with with your rampant sociopathy) is where we are irreconcilable. I just can't understand any foundational principle that's so convoluted. Most people have things like human well-being, getting to heaven, natural order (or what they perceive it to be). They then argue from there what actually constitutes any of those things and how best to achieve them. But to have as ones foundational position as a desire to let everyone do what they want to the maximum extent, even if that makes most people miserable. I just can't get my head around that.

Still - each to their own. Fortunately people like me (or vaguely like me) outnumber people like you significantly so we can force you to behave with a semblance of human compassion even if you don't want to.

It’s not a desire to “let everyone do what he wants”. It’s a desire to oppose state and mob coercion, as is evident by your desire to force us into conformity.

How does your speech have consequences for you. What is the mechanism by which those consequences come about?

Like any act I perform it serves a certain purpose.

I'm guessing you must think it's bad to inhibit people from doing what they want. Is that it?
— Relativist

Yes. Didn't I explicitly say that? I thought I had. — Terrapin Station

My point was that we judge whether or not to restrict free speech based on the anticipated consequences, since we agree "objective moral values" don't exist.

It’s a desire to oppose state and mob coercion, as is evident by your desire to force us into conformity. — NOS4A2

And by what mechanism is such coercion exercised? If words have no consequences, it can't be words. If the response to someone throwing rocks of a building is "don't go near that building" then it can't be laws - just don't live in that country. So what exactly is the nature of this coercion you disapprove of?

Like any act I perform it serves a certain purpose — NOS4A2

How does it serve a purpose? By what mechanism?

But how does free speech achieve this if speech acts have no causal effects? How does free speech make people diagnose, improve and correct things, I thought speech was supposed to be incapable of making people do anything?
Or, to put it another way. If we can rely on the good sense of individuals not to be swayed by hate speech, why can we not rely on the good sense of individuals to diagnose and correct society's problems without needing to be prompted to do so by an opposition rally? — Isaac

How does actual working vision help you if it has no causal effects? Applying a coloured lens to your glasses is not "causal" to action, but it sure alters how you perceive the world.
There are different dimensions to information. Isolated data, Data + Context, Data + Context + Repercussions on "greater picture" , etc.
It's the level of awareness and relevancy and your internal variables that makes you decide to do things.

Much like you won't dodge a baseball coming at you from a TV screen, but you will if it's face to face, or you won't if you're supposed to get hit as you're acting in a movie being filmed.

That's the problem of academics vs real life, academic research and statistics allows you to isolate variables, but in the process, the fidelity of the picture it has of reality is potentially compromised.

We are both speaking out of a concern for humanity, I understand this much. Our suggestions are just coloured by different experiences. I know what censoring speech does to a society because I lived it. It is imperceptible until outsiders point out the differences.

Hell, North Americans barely have any clue of half the things their government gets up to until you get whistleblowers like Snowden. That's why I am very reluctant to anything that gives a government, especially one that isn't transparent, that kind of fundamental power. Ask them to police ideas, and they sure as hell will.

No. None that I know of. The massive problem with social sciences is that it is almost impossible to properly control for secondary factors. We just cannot (ethically or practically) set up experiments with sufficient control groups to actually demonstrate anything to the level of accuracy expected in other fields. The question I'm interested in (of which this debate is just an example) is what do we do about that. Do we just throw our hands up and say "we might as well just guess"? — Isaac

I think a large measure of a society's "resistance" to hate speech is anchored in two factors, Upbringing and Education. Hate speech in formative years without proper guidance or alternatives can essentially become a "lens" that colours someone's view of the world, because as people grow they become less curious, more reluctant to take in new paradigms.

My best friend and I disagree on this topic a lot, as he suggests giving free speech to fascists normalizes their ideology, and prevents others from recognizing them as the threats they are. Going to have a chat with him on the matter today, see if my opinion changes at all.

There are no consequences, positive or negative, to speech. — NOS4A2

I disagree. Our world views are largely a consequence of our environment, and speech constitutes a large part of that environment.

Coercion is the use or threat of using physical violence against someone else's person or property. I say something you don’t like, you punch me in the nose. Your actions are not a consequence of my speech but of your tendency to use coercion.

I disagree. Our world views are largely a consequence of our environment, and speech constitutes a large part of that environment.

Then how come my speech isn’t contributing to your world view? It seems to have the opposite effect.

How does it serve a purpose? By what mechanism?

Biology is the mechanism, I suppose.

Then how come my speech isn’t contributing to your world view? It seems to have the opposite effect. — NOS4A2

You've switched from "consequence" to "contribution". Moving the goalposts again, I see.

One consequence which your speech tends to have on me is that it has me laughing or shaking my head in disbelief.

You've switched from "consequence" to "contribution". Moving the goalposts again, I see.

One consequence which your speech tends to have on me is that it has me laughing or shaking my head in disbelief.

That’s a lie, I said “contributing”. Again you’re revealing more about yourself than you can about reality.

That’s a lie, I said “contributing”. Again you’re revealing more about yourself than you can about reality. — NOS4A2

Haha, yes, I know you said "contributing". And that's a variation of "contribution", but you weren't originally talking about contribution. You switched from talking about consequences to talking about contribution.

Haha, yes, I know you said "contributing". And that's a variation of "contribution", but you weren't originally talking about contribution. You switched from talking about consequences to talking about contribution.

I have no clue what your argument is here.

I have no clue what your argument is here. — NOS4A2

You have no clue, generally. Do you know what it means to move the goalposts, in the context of informal logic?

There isn't only one option. I think you need to backtrack and explain yourself properly before directing such loaded questions my way. — S

When we're talking causality, there's only one option.

You have no clue, generally. Do you know what it means to move the goalposts?

Contribute is a verb, consequence is a noun. Do you know the difference?

Biology is the mechanism, I suppose. — NOS4A2

So if your speaking has consequences for you via biological mechanisms, then what biological barrier is in place to prevent those same consequences in others?

Contribute is a verb, consequence is a noun. Do you know the difference? — NOS4A2

Yes. They're two different words, with two different meanings. The word "contribute" has more of a positive connotation (as in e.g. "What did you contribute to the team?") which "consequence" lacks. Do you understand that? And do you understand that you keep moving the goalposts in response to questions and criticism?

How does actual working vision help you if it has no causal effects? Applying a coloured lens to your glasses is not "causal" to action, but it sure alters how you perceive the world. — Necrofantasia

It is absolutely causal. The chain of causality between light hitting the lens and changes in the state of the brain is one of the more well documented sequences. It absolutely has physical consequences on the brain, and it is uncontroversial to think that alterations to brain state affect behaviour. Never been drunk...?

You keep conflating separate things (correlation and causation for example) to the point I'm starting to think this discussion isn't intellectually honest. Your eyes are not your brain, they are connected, but they aren't the same thing.

Yes. They're two different words, with two different meanings. The word "contribute" has more of a positive connotation (as in e.g. "What did you contribute to the team?") which "consequence" lacks. Do you understand that?

Why would I use the noun “consequence” instead of the verb “contribute”? No I do not understand