So there's this thing called probability. You may have heard of it. — S

You know that I'm not a realist on mathematics, right? (Or physical laws for that matter.)

Re probability, Bayesian probability is complete garbage in my view, and probability in general doesn't justify heuristic conclusions in contexts like this.

You know that I'm not a realist on mathematics, right? (Or physical laws for that matter.)

Re probability, Bayesian probability is complete garbage in my view, and probability in general doesn't justify heuristic conclusions in contexts like this. — Terrapin Station

Riiiight...

Well, I'd love to chat some more with you, but I'm busy here on the moon right now.

So my initial post to you had a bunch of questions that you answered, but at the end I asked about whats acceptable risk. Im still not sure about that last question so wanted to know how you’ve calculated that allowing hate speech poses an unacceptable risk. Like, how many instances of terrorism do you think would be reduced if hate speech is banned compared to if it isnt? Note, Im not trying to argue against your answer so there is no need to be as accurate as you might want if you were laying down an argument. I just want a sense of what you have in mind as a reference when im reading your exchanges on this thread.

So my initial post to you had a bunch of questions that you answered, but at the end I asked about whats acceptable risk. Im still not sure about that last question so wanted to know how you’ve calculated that allowing hate speech poses an unacceptable risk. Like, how many instances of terrorism do you think would be reduced if hate speech is banned compared to if it isnt? Note, Im not trying to argue against your answer so there is no need to be as accurate as you might want if you were laying down an argument. I just want a sense of what you have in mind as a reference when im reading your exchanges on this thread. — DingoJones

What counts as an acceptable risk would include risks that are out of our control, risks that are too impractical to act upon, risks which are considered too trivial to legislate against, and risks which lack sufficient evidence or predictive power in leading to crime. What counts as an unacceptable risk would include risks which are to the contrary of the aforementioned, risks which would pass a cost-benefit analysis to take action against, and risks which are actionable without infringing too far on our rights and liberties.

I don't know how many instances of terrorism would be reduced by hate speech being banned compared to when it isn't. Without a study to reference, I would just be speculating on that number.

I don't know how many instances of terrorism would be reduced by hate speech being banned compared to when it isn't. Without a study to reference, I would just be speculating on that number. — S

Right, but Im asking you to speculate, since your sense of whether or not hate speech should be banned is based on that speculation.

Right, but Im asking you to speculate, since your sense of whether or not hate speech should be banned is based on that speculation. — DingoJones

I can't put a number to it, and I don't need to. I'm not going to guess. All that matters is that measures are in place to prevent potential terrorist attacks. If you're interested enough, then you're welcome to look for research on the matter.

Well that would do exactly nothing to help me understand YOUR intuitions on the matter, but ok.

There is a paradox of freedom. Basically, freedom in it's absolute sense may create environment or a society which restricts other freedoms. So to advocate for freedom of speech on all matters solely on the supremacy of the value of freedom seems contradictory.

I don’t know what you think Im supposed to do with that. Did you mean to address someone else?

Just doing a little research.

As the previous sections have outlined, there are direct and indirect harms that
might result from hate speech. In terms of the former, hate speech may result in psychological harm or harm to the dignity of members of the targeted groups. In terms of the latter, hate speech may lead to violence or public disorder or to societal discrimination. None of these claims are easy to evidence empirically, but the case for all of them becomes more convincing when taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple instances of hate speech rather than examining each individual instance in isolation. — A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report To The Hate Crime Legislation Review, James Chalmers and Fiona Leverick, University of Glasgow, July 2017

Seems pretty vague to me. Lots of things have “direct and indirect” harms. I see “may” cause a few times, I see the claims are not “easy to evidence empirically”.
Still pretty skeptical about the reasons so far presented for your side here...though Im not really all that convinced by the arguments on the other side either. Why ive stuck around reading this long I suppose.

I was merely pointing out that your approach to linking violations of other rights such as right to life to hate speech by insisting on statistics or data is wrong and as a matter of fact, they are logically interlinked. As a result , we have the paradox of tolerance or paradox of freedom, however you phrase it.

Are referring to something I said much earlier in the thread? I wasnt making an argument when I addressed S, I was trying to get clarification...which was provided.
So Im confused at where you are coming from in your commentary.

Speech acts are statements of thought/belief. Thought/belief have efficacy. They lead to patterns of thinking, habits, and acts.

Does anyone here deny this?

We are interdependent social creatures. Each of us has a certain power to influence the world around us. The context here - the backdrop if you like - is ethics/morality. What counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour(speech).

It ought go without saying that unfettered/unregulated freedom is impossible. So, there is a need to regulate freedoms, including freedom of speech.

Hate speech ought not be banned. Rather, it ought be used as an example of that which is unethical and thus ought be further shunned and frowned upon.

Seems pretty vague to me. Lots of things have “direct and indirect” harms. I see “may” cause a few times, I see the claims are not “easy to evidence empirically”.
Still pretty skeptical about the reasons so far presented for your side here...though Im not really all that convinced by the arguments on the other side either. Why ive stuck around reading this long I suppose. — DingoJones

Well, yeah, it will say "may" because it's not a sure thing. Would you expect it to be any different? And yeah, as the analysis states, it isn't easy to evidence empirically, which is also what I would expect, and which is a point that I think Isaac has more or less made a number of times. Although the full analysis does contain a number of empirical experiments as evidence. But then, as it says, the case for all of them becomes more convincing when taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple instances of hate speech rather than examining each individual instance in isolation. All as expected.

Just doing a little research.

As the previous sections have outlined, there are direct and indirect harms that
might result from hate speech. In terms of the former, hate speech may result in psychological harm or harm to the dignity of members of the targeted groups. In terms of the latter, hate speech may lead to violence or public disorder or to societal discrimination. None of these claims are easy to evidence empirically, but the case for all of them becomes more convincing when taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple instances of hate speech rather than examining each individual instance in isolation. — A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report To The Hate Crime Legislation Review, James Chalmers and Fiona Leverick, University of Glasgow, July 2017 — S

And another for good measure.

From https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.00119

"we find that the proportion of discrimination that is targeted is associated with the number of hate crimes."

From the Warwick paper I've already cited.

"In the absence of anti-refugee posts on the AfD Facebook page 437 (13%) fewer anti-refugee incidents would have taken place.”

Now cue them saying there's a lot of "might"s, "maybe"s and methodological problems. Cue us saying it's about risk and cost-benefit analysis. Cue them saying there's no academic who even states there's a link... and we go back to the beginning again. This is a pointless discussion at this stage.

As a summary, for those still reading, to avoid the pointless circularity we've been going through, and perhaps to act as a springboard for real discussion...

1. There are definitely, without a doubt, experts in the field who think it is possible that a link exists between certain types of hate speech and serious consequences like increased violence, prejudicial treatment, fear, and even terrorism. Three of them are quoted above, others within the thread.

2. Every legislative action, at least since human rights law, but also significantly before, has been calculated by an analysis of the costs to society vs the benefits and both of these must be calculated by probability because we cannot ever have certainty about the future impacts of legislation.

3. Hate speech has virtually no benefit to society. There are a very small number of people who will have their ability to speak freely in public constrained. Absolutely no ideas are being restricted because it is possible to express every idea in non-hateful ways, unless that idea is actual hate. The ECtHR has specifically made clear, as has UK Law, that hate speech does not cover any form of criticism or ridicule, so there is no restriction on the free exchange of ideas.

4. The costs to society of hate speech which are being warned of are very large - violence and terrorism for a start, and prejudicial treatment has not gone well for societies in the past. Because they are large, we do not need a high probability of their being the case in order to take them seriously. This is absolutely standard risk assessment practice - to multiply the severity of the harm by the likelihood.

Therefore we legislate, with proportionate punishments, against certain types of hate speech.

Speech acts are statements of thought/belief. — creativesoul

They're not literally thought or belief. As long as we're saying that they're correlated to thought or belief, or we're just speaking very loosely/rather metaphorically, I'm fine with "speech acts are statements of thought/belief" though.

Thought/belief have efficacy. They lead to patterns of thinking, habits, and acts. — creativesoul

I'd agree that they can lead to that in the bearer of the thought/belief in question, although sometimes in rather unpredictable ways.

What counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour(speech). — creativesoul

On my view, nothing counts as morally (or legally) unacceptable thought, belief or speech.

thought/belief — creativesoul

Oh god. Who let him in?

Hate speech has virtually no benefit to society. — Isaac

You know that there aren't any facts as to whether something is a benefit or not, right?

Absolutely no ideas are being restricted because it is possible to express every idea in non-hateful ways, — Isaac

This is very odd to say because it suggests that the problem has nothing to do with semantics but rather quite literally with word choices, with the sounds or looks (if written) of certain words.

Take the example of someone who has the belief that we should "gas the Jews." There would be countless ways to express that idea. So, you'd be saying that some of those ways to express the idea are kosher (so to speak); you'd not be saying that the problem is that the idea is expressed (in whatever the kosher way to express it would be . . . and of course this is assuming that very different expressions can exist that don't make much if any semantic difference)

You know that there aren't any facts as to whether something is a benefit or not, right? — Terrapin Station

You know that you could interpret that statement more charitably, right? There are facts about what's generally considered a benefit. That's what he meant. In that context, there's nothing controversial in what he said. And in that context, your fringe opinion is irrelevant.

You know that you could interpret that statement more charitably, right? There are facts about what's generally considered a benefit — S

Which has what to do with whether something is a benefit?

That's no different--for rhetorical purposes--from simply saying "Joe Smith doesn't consider x to have any benefits"

Which has what to do with whether something is a benefit? — Terrapin Station

Yeah, if that's what he meant. People speak that way all of the time. People call a "car" what's generally considered to be a car, as in that metal thing with four wheels. It has no bearing on anything if someone chips in by saying, "Oh, but there's no fact of the matter! I happen to think that a car is a giraffe!".

and

What bearing on anything does the fact that most people consider it to have no benefit have?

and

What bearing on anything does the fact that most people consider it to have no benefit have? — Terrapin Station

It just means that you'll disagree, while the rest of us agree, and your disagreement won't really matter in the bigger picture, just like car-giraffe guy. That's you. You're car-giraffe guy.

It just means that you'll disagree, while the rest of us agree, and your disagreement won't really matter in the bigger picture. — S

Won't matter to most people. Okay, and what about it? What would the purpose of that be rhetorically? Is it just an exercise in pointing out the obvious, with no aim to persuade, no aim to suggest facts or implications other than what most people think or do?

If one were to write, "Most people think there is no benefit to hate speech, and they don't care that you think otherwise," that would certainly be true, but what of it? What would be the point of even bothering to write that?

Won't matter to most people. Okay, and what about it? What would the purpose of that be rhetorically? Is it just an exercise in pointing out the obvious, with no aim to persuade, no aim to suggest facts or implications other than what most people think or do? — Terrapin Station

We don't have a burden to constantly satisfy your unreasonable doubts and denials. Why should we care what car-giraffe guy thinks?

Propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech.