In the process of forbidding these, free speech is put on the slippery slope that I have described. As such, let the instigators instigate. When they resort to violence, they break the law and should be dealt with as such. — Tzeentch

They will be dealt with, but will they be dealt with sufficiently or will it be too late to reprimand these instigators?
This is yet another slippery slope, where you allow the rotten tree to fall and smash your house, settling to deal with the aftermath. Perhaps it would be more prodigal to prevent injury, rather than to mend it?

People can have heated debate about anything. The fragile ego will find ways to express itself. If people were to desire freedom from contention, then perhaps everyone should lose their tongue at birth. No, in order for free speech to be worth anything, we must risk contention and offense, and deal with it like adults, instead of like children.

In the words of Descartes: "Whenever anybody has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it."

The safety of the people may be safeguarded by an effective police force and justice system. — Tzeentch

Perhaps, there is a necessary risk involved with freedom.
I doubt that dictates that inflammatory actions ought be acquitted.

That one has the freedom to kill, does not dictate that one should freely kill - does it?

The innability to coexist, will inevitably end in repercussions for all parties involved.
Dealing with it like adults, children, men or beasts is equally faulty - as it has nothing to do with either.
And the job of the justice system is to enforce coexistence, through means of fear and repercussions - that unfortunately add to the tension, rather than to relieve it - as the general realisation of 'why' is left out. It's a dam that is prone to break, as it does often enough. How long until the whole thing falls apart, I wonder?

You were quite right that people ought to be educated, but I retain the question, what in?
Merely enhancing their intellect, will enhance their observation - fueling the violent to violence and the kind to kindness; it lone, is not enough.

How? — Tzeentch

It is no longer about Freedom of Speech, but Freely Speaking.
It is anarchical, and anarchy is self-cannibalising.
Freedom gets tossed out for the contention of freedom; and so your ideal is snared.

I will rephrase my point;

If one's intellect propels one to violent action, one may not be as wise as they think they are. — Tzeentch

One's wisdom is irrelevant, to the degree of violence or kindness.
Knowing of violence may enhance one's actions, though not control them.
So it is not intellect that propels one to violent action, and likewise it will not be intellect that will subdue it. Something else is required to play; a binder.

Firstly, I do not like the comparison between physical and psychological pain. Physical pain is, for most, an involuntary response that physiologically bypasses the intellect. Offense is a voluntary response. — Tzeentch

They are the same. Pain felt here or there, is all generated in the mind.

Obliviousness to injury, voluntary or involuntary, will not produce pain.
Expectation of injury, voluntary or involuntary, will produce pain.

It is an act of awareness that may be maintaned, similar to the volume level of your phone's ringtone.
Pain does not bypass the intellect, though how it interacts with it is undecided.

As to your question; why allow people to rub proverbial salt?

Humanity is imperfect, and as such it is only expected that some will make sub-optimal use of their freedoms.

But the real question here is, how come someone perceives words as being so powerful as to be like salt upon wounds?

Again, whatever is being said can be true, in which case it should be accepted no matter how much it hurts and one should be grateful instead of offended. — Tzeentch

How would one make sub-optimal use of one's freedom if one is truly free?
Do you see freedom as an allowance to be exchanged?

Perhaps some words are perceived as powerful, for they truly are powerful?
Perhaps they work similar to a poison, that attacks something other than the flesh - so it is harder for the injuries to be detected and thus taken consideration of, for they are not so obvious?
Maybe it is the frail ego that they lacerate, but would that not entail that it is the frail ego that lacerates its opposing ego?

I do agree, that one ought be grateful for the truth, though it may be painful.
But would it not be more beneficial to express the truth in a less brutish manner, that does not involve nailing down the message?
Is it not more so what you do with it, rather than what it is? In which case the offender would be just as guilty as the offended; indeed, both fail.

If it is false or opinion, then what is there to be offended about? The disposition of the other? If one thinks the offender is so totally wrong in their beliefs, wouldn't pity be a much more appropriate emotion rather than indignation? Seek to make him see the error of his ways rather than silence him.

If some offender is being purposefully hurtful, why put any value in his words? Much like with a high-school bully, ask oneself how his situation came to be, and soon enough one will find pity or compassion more suitable emotions than anger and indignation.

Finally, when one feels offended, it should cause a moment of self-reflection, because apparently one is not as confident about their beliefs as they tell themselves they are. Wouldn't one's response be otherwise to laugh? When someone tells me the earth is flat, I do not get offended, for I know it to be wrong. So why do I get offended now? — Tzeentch

Perhaps one gets offended at the false, as the wilfully false confuses the one?
If the one craves truth, and the falsely speaking comes to stomp around, the one may feel offended in the same way as if someone came to stomp down your garden; for the wilfully false trades in misfortune.
Pity if directed by the one, will be at most to the one.

Would compassion or pity be more suitable emotions? Perhaps.
Yet they are not void of indignation - for they mingle with indignation, with the intent of washing it away.

Is one offended merely because one is not confident enough? I don't know.
But I doubt the appropriate response would be to otherwise laugh; that feels equally as unconfident.

Why wouldn't it simply take a claim that you asked someone to hook up with you and they turned you down? — Terrapin Station

Why are you continuing to pursue this when we both know that it's a stupid idea, not at all comparable to hate speech?

All we need for rape is a claim that it happened. — Terrapin Station

What?

Why are you continuing to pursue this when we both know that it's a stupid idea, not at all comparable to hate speech? — S

Just following shamshir's reasoning.

Free speech in the U.S. does not mean you can say anything, in any context, and suffer no consequences. There are laws against slander and libel. You can be fired for making negative comments about your employer. an absence of restriction is untenable. Hate speech is similar to slander.

I use language so that I may be understood. — NOS4A2

So your language is a cause of the understanding in others. The consequences of your speech is others understanding something you've said.

In the process of forbidding these, free speech is put on the slippery slope that I have described. — Tzeentch

Yes, classic slippery slope. I'm thinking of starting a petition to get the law against murdering children repealed, fancy signing up?

You know... First they ban murdering children, then they'll ban smacking children and before you know it they'll ban taking them to the park to feed the ducks...we must act now before it's too late!

there's a simple cost-benefit analysis that can be done with hate speech, — S

Exactly. A perfectly normal activity for anyone living in the real world to have to contend with. Compromise, weighing harms, pragmatism...

Doesn't anyone remember how the last countries run by uncompromising ideology turned out? I'll jog your memories... 10 million dead.

So your language is a cause of the understanding in others. The consequences of your speech is others understanding something you've said.

Not true. You understanding what I’ve said is a consequence of your own language.

Just following shamshir's reasoning. — Terrapin Station

Okay. You asked:

Why couldn't you do a "what if" in the same vein about any arbitrary thing? — Terrapin Station

And the answer is that you could apply the same reasoning, but in the case of hate speech there's a sensible basis for banning it, or for maintaining the ban where it's already in place, whereas your counter proposal is stupid. Hate speech is already prohibited under UK law, and if you scrapped those laws, then you'd bear responsibility for the consequences. But you can't scrap laws on prohibiting being romantically spurned because no such laws exist because that would be stupid.

Doesn't anyone remember how the last countries run by uncompromising ideology turned out? I'll jog your memories... 10 million dead.

Those uncompromising ideologies routinely and visciously censored views they despised. How did that turn out?

Those uncompromising ideologies routinely and visciously censored views they despised. How did that turn out? — NOS4A2

The moral of the story would be to reject both extreme censorship and free speech fanaticism, and to support instead a reasonable balance between the two extremes.

The moral of the story would be to reject both extreme censorship and free speech fanaticism, and support a reasonable balance between the two extremes.

Oh that dangerous free speech fanaticism, sure to lead to genocide and death. Of course, free speech fanaticism has never lead to any such extreme, only to the defense of human rights.

Not true. You understanding what I’ve said is a consequence of your own language. — NOS4A2

This is a joke surely? How is that I understand what you say and not some other unrelated thing?

If you say "imagine a blue elephant" how is that I imagine a blue elephant? Coincidence? Come on!

Those uncompromising ideologies routinely and visciously censored views they despised. — NOS4A2

Of course they did. Any half-wit dictator could work out the necessity of doing that. The point is that in absolutely no historical case did the process start with a tiny imposition on the right to free speech. At all times they started with an uncompromising faith in some ideology.

This is a joke surely? How is that I understand what you say and not some other unrelated thing?

If you say "imagine a blue elephant" how is that I imagine a blue elephant? Coincidence? Come on!

Not a joke. Would you imagine an elephant if you didn’t understand the language I spoke? The words are there, the sound waves are there, the meaning is there, yet you don’t imagine an elephant. Why is that?

My understanding the language wasn't the part I was confused about. I'm quite happy that me understanding English is a necessary cause of me imagining a blue elephant in response to your suggestion. What I'm struggling to understand is your laughable claim that your words are not.

Of course they did. Any half-wit dictator could work out the necessity of doing that. The point is that in absolutely no historical case did the process start with a tiny imposition on the right to free speech. At all times they started with an uncompromising faith in some ideology.

The suppression of civil rights was one of the first thing Hitler did with the Reichstag Fire Decree. The rest is history.

The suppression of civil rights was one of the first thing Hitler did with the Reichstag Fire Decree. — NOS4A2

Yes. I'm pretty sure that the suppression of opposition speech was the first thing Hitler did after some other thing he did. That's basically how things progress. One thing after another. My claim was that Hitler's rise to power did not start with suppressing hate speech. Which is what you are implying could happen. It has never happened.

How can only some words be the necessary cause of you imagining an elephant but the same words in a different language are not? You hear the words, you interpret the meaning, you think of an elephant, all of which are actions performed by you, not me.

Yes. I'm pretty sure that the suppression of opposition speech was the first thing Hitler did after some other thing he did. That's basically how things progress. One thing after another. My claim was that Hitler's rise to power did not start with suppressing hate speech. Which is what you are implying could happen. It has never happened.

What did it start with? The Big Bang?

How can only some words be the necessary cause of you imagining an elephant but the same words in a different language are not? — NOS4A2

Who said anything about the necessary cause? A necessary cause. A necessary cause. A necessary cause. Do you understand the difference between necessary and sufficient?

You hear the words, you interpret the meaning, you think of an elephant, all of which are actions performed by you, not me. — NOS4A2

Yes, and the first one in the chain is you speak the words. Why is the chain starting with me hearing the words. In order for me to hear the words it is necessary that you speak them.

What did it start with? The Big Bang? — NOS4A2

It started with a program of violence and propoganda from 1928, five years before the riechstag fire decree.

Just one of many necessary causes I suppose? Sorry, I misunderstood. But that is the fault of your words, not me, right?

Yes, and the first one in the chain is you speak the words. Why is the chain starting with me hearing the words. In order for me to hear the words it is necessary that you speak them.

Because that’s where any reaction to any outer stimulus begins. Meaning doesn’t fly through the air on sound waves. It’s you who hears them, understands them, interprets them, judges them, and so on.

And the answer is that you could apply the same reasoning, but in the case of hate speech there's a sensible basis for banning it, — S

. . . What does that have to do with Shamshir's post?

where any reaction to any outer stimulus begins. — NOS4A2

No. Not any reaction. That's the point. I don't just have any reaction to you saying "imagine a blue elephant". I might stubbornly refuse to imagine a blue elephant. I might get confused and imagine a pink elephant... But I am vastly more likely to think of a blue elephant than I would have been had you not spoken the words. Your words have had an effect on me. They have made it vastly more likely that I will think of a blue elephant than it was before you spoke.

If you don't believe me, walk into a pub, say "imagine a blue elephant" and bet £100 that the number of people who then think of a blue elephant will be exactly the same as the pub next door where no one spoke those words.

Oh, and one more thing about Hitler that's not been answered yet. Why on earth did Hitler ban opposition speech, and why does anyone care that he did. I thought speech had no consequences. What does it matter if it is banned?

No. Not any reaction. That's the point. I don't just have any reaction to you saying "imagine a blue elephant". I might stubbornly refuse to imagine a blue elephant. I might get confused and imagine a pink elephant... But I am vastly more likely to think of a blue elephant than I would have been had you not spoken the words. Your words have had an effect on me. They have made it vastly more likely that I will think of a blue elephant than it was before you spoke.

I don’t see it. I wouldn’t imagine a blue elephant just because you told me to. I would have to choose to do so.

No. Not any reaction. That's the point. I don't just have any reaction to you saying "imagine a blue elephant". I might stubbornly refuse to imagine a blue elephant. I might get confused and imagine a pink elephant... But I am vastly more likely to think of a blue elephant than I would have been had you not spoken the words. Your words have had an effect on me. They have made it vastly more likely that I will think of a blue elephant than it was before you spoke.

If you don't believe me, walk into a pub, say "imagine a blue elephant" and bet £100 that the number of people who then think of a blue elephant will be exactly the same as the pub next door where no one spoke those words. — Isaac

What would this have to do with the notion of causing people to be violent because you're saying "nigga" or teaching a dog to raise its paw when it hears "Sieg Heil" (which are two cases that were looked at under the UK hate speech laws)?

I don’t see it. I wouldn’t imagine a blue elephant just because you told me to. I would have to choose to do so. — NOS4A2

Where did I say you would? I never said would. I said you were vastly more likely to than you would have have been without my saying it.

If you took two crowds and to one said "think of a blue elephant and to the other you said nothing, are you seriously telling me you think the proportion of people thinking of blue elephants would be exactly the same?

What would this have to do with the notion of causing people to be violent because you're saying "nigga" or teaching a dog to raise its paw when it hears "Sieg Heil" (which are two cases that were looked at under the UK hate speech laws)? — Terrapin Station

Because both those expressions make it more likely that people will think violent actions against those groups or in favour of those causes are acceptable than would be the case had they not been said/done.

People moderate their behaviour according to social norms, if they perceive that those social norms include treating one group of people as less human or deserving of punishment /derision then they will be less likely to restrict their own negative behaviour toward those groups, including physical action.

But I don't know why I'm explaining this to you because you've already made it clear that your random desire for people to be able to say hateful things is so important (for no reason) that only unequivocal abundant evidence of any risk will sway you from it.

As I've already said. Social sciences only deal with suggestions, probabilities, possibilities... The stuff grown-ups have to deal with.