Since you're non-responsive on the point, may I take it that you agree that, while speech alone by itself cannot lift a stone, that that same speech may be deployed to persuade - and persuade - a human agent to lift the stone, and be intended to accomplish that exact result?

Or a different example: either of a policeman or an armed robber tells you to raise your hands; aren't you inclined, as a result of that speech act, to raise your hands?

Since you're non-responsive on the point, may I take it that you agree that, while speech alone by itself cannot lift a stone, that that same speech may be deployed to persuade - and persuade - a human agent to lift the stone, and be intended to accomplish that exact result?

Or a different example: either of a policeman or an armed robber tells you to raise your hands; aren't you inclined, as a result of that speech act, to raise your hands? — tim wood

You certainly base decisions to do things on speech, sure.

What matters to me when we're talking about ethics, proposing legislation, etc., is the fact that you decided to do something and were not forced to do it.

You certainly base decisions to do things on speech, sure.

What matters to me when we're talking about ethics, proposing legislation, etc., is the fact that you decided to do something and were not forced to do it. — Terrapin Station

Since there is a spectrum from influence to coercion, that implies that there is a minimum threshold of control you need to have over someone else's actions in order for this control to matter, correct?

What are your principles for deciding what amount of control is sufficient for ethical or legal considerations?

What matters to me when we're talking about ethics, proposing legislation, etc., is the fact that you decided to do something and were not forced to do it. — Terrapin Station

Fair enough. But it leaves the question of just how you define "forced." Not that we have to go there. But if either cop or crook points gun at me and say "stick 'em up!" I'll raise my hands and argue that I was forced to. Of course this goes back to "force."

I use "force" in the sense of physical causality. "Force" in your example is not actual force.

Re your example, I'd have a category of criminal threatening though. (I know I posted my definition of that recently, it may have been earlier in this thread.)

What are your principles for deciding what amount of control is sufficient for ethical or legal considerations? — Echarmion

It has to be force in the sense of physical causality. Nothing less.

It's simply an intuitive stipulation based on my dispositions.

With anything less than force a la physical causality, the person could have decided to do something different.

...conflicts don't emerge from countries having armed forces. — ssu

They most certainly have.

Nazis were persecuted for their speech... — NOS4A2

Are you defending the Nazis and their vile and condemnable hate speech?

It's simply an intuitive stipulation based on my dispositions.

With anything less than force a la physical causality, the person could have decided to do something different. — Terrapin Station

Right. But that leaves only physically manipulating someone's limbs. Not a very common scenario in practice.

But you did, in your previous post, state that you'd still have laws against criminal threats. How do those relate to your speech position?

With anything less than force a la physical causality, the person could have decided to do something different.
— Terrapin Station

Right. But that leaves only physically manipulating someone's limbs. Not a very common scenario in practice. — Echarmion

Actually, he's an ardent physicalist who claims that everything is physical, including that the mental is the physical, so he'd be inconsistent in denying the physical process involving sound waves from verbal speech, all of the physical stuff that goes on in our brain in reaction to them, and all of the resulting physical actions, all of which have a cause and effect relationship. He's actually just assuming that there's a point where the person could have acted differently. Apparently that's based on nothing other than an intuition, which is weaks grounds for support. I don't recall seeing any positive case from Terrapin Station. He has just been playing sceptic when it's convenient to do so.

Why would you say that?

Why didn't you say so?

Both are common in normal day-to-day existence.

Everyone, including me, has these questions asked of them.

Maybe the answer to free speech vs hate speech lies in understanding how conversation or discourse flip-flops between the two.

That’s one of the perils of defending free speech: you have to defend it for everyone.

Are you defending the Nazis and their vile and condemnable hate speech?
— S

That’s one of the perils of defending free speech: you have to defend it for everyone. — NOS4A2

No you don't, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

No you don't, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

Well, you don’t believe in free speech, so I can understand your fears. But those who believe in free speech do and have defended the free speech of Nazis, the KKK, fire-breathing Islamists, etc.

A great example of this is Aryeh Neier, the head of the ACLU and holocaust survivor who defended the right of Nazis to hold a rally through a neighborhood where plenty of holocaust survivors lived. He wrote a great book about it.

You're once again confusing the advocation of free speech with your extremely unreasonable absolutist nonsense.

But you did, in your previous post, state that you'd still have laws against criminal threats. How do those relate to your speech position? — Echarmion

I posted this earlier in the thread, but here it is again:

Threatening anyone should only be a crime when it's an immediate, "physical" threat in the sense of potential victims being within the range of the threatening instruments (whether just one's body, or weapons, or causally connected remote devices or substances, etc.), which are actual and not simply claimed, so that (a) either a verbal (or written, etc.) or body language or weaponry threat is explicitly made/performed, (b) the threat is reasonably considered either a serious premeditation to commit nonconsensual violence or something with negligent culpability should nonconsensual physical damage result, and (c) the threatened party couldn't reasonably escape or evade the threatened actions should the threatener decide or negligently carry them out at that moment.

No I’m not. You were triggered that I defended the free speech of Nazis, and said I should be ashamed. Then I showed how civil rights activists do the same. I’d love to watch you tell the head of the ACLU that he should be ashamed of himself for defending the free speech of Nazis.

No I’m not. You were triggered that I defended the free speech of Nazis, and said I should be ashamed. Then I showed how civil rights activists do the same. I’d love to watch you tell the head of the ACLU that he should be ashamed of himself for defending the free speech of Nazis. — NOS4A2

Yes you are, and I would have no qualms about telling him so, except that it wouldn't count as free speech under U.K. law, so over here he wouldn't be defending free speech, he would be defending rightly prohibited hate speech.

Yes you are, and I would have no qualms about telling him so, except that it wouldn't count as free speech under U.K. law, so over here he wouldn't be defending free speech, he would be defending rightly prohibited hate speech.

No I’m not. Free speech is the same everywhere, it’s just that the degrees of censorship are different. So yes, he would be defending free speech, as other human rights defenders always have. You would be defending censorship.

No I’m not. Free speech is the same everywhere, it’s just that the degrees of censorship are different. So yes, he would be defending free speech, as other human rights defenders always have. You would be defending censorship. — NOS4A2

If you're disputing what I said, then you are factually incorrect. It wouldn't count as free speech under U.K. law. I cited the law to you earlier, on a public forum, for us all to see. In the U.K., it wouldn't be defending free speech, it would be defending the crime known as hate speech. And if you reply with your usual denials, then you're just wasting your breath.

I think you are the one that should be ashamed. You have allowed your bias and dislike of NOS4A2 (cuz of the Trump thread?) to subsume your rational thinking on this issue. Acting like his points are utter nonsense and ignoring his arguments shows your ignorance, as he mentioned actual civil rights activists (prominent and intelligent ones) disagree with you. For someone as hyper critical of other peoples rationality as you are, you should be very ashamed indeed.

That's a nonresponse. Address my points properly or don't bother replying.

If you're disputing what I said, then you are factually incorrect. It wouldn't count as free speech under U.K. law. I cited the law to you earlier, on a public forum, for us all to see. In the U.K., it wouldn't be defending free speech, it would be defending the crime known as hate speech. And if you reply with your usual denials, then you're just wasting your breath.

I’m talking of free speech, not UK law and their fevered and infantilizing censorship. It’s becoming more apparent you do not even know what free speech is.

I’m talking of free speech, not UK law and their fevered and infantilizing censorship. It’s becoming more apparent you do not even know what free speech is. — NOS4A2

You're talking about your own favoured conception of free speech, which to be clear you should be calling absolute free speech. That's the version for fanatics. I'm talking about free speech as defined by the law in the United Kingdom, as I always have been from the very beginning. That's the version for people with a sense of perspective. I made it clear that I was going by a legal definition early on.

Or, rather, it would count as free speech, but it would be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So, fine, you're free to spew vile and condemnable hate speech, but it will be subject to the above, and rightly so. If you end up convicted of a crime, and sentenced to, say, 180 hours of community service, like the case of Frayda Jenson, then that serves you right.

I posted this earlier in the thread, but here it is again:

Threatening anyone should only be a crime when it's an immediate, "physical" threat in the sense of potential victims being within the range of the threatening instruments (whether just one's body, or weapons, or causally connected remote devices or substances, etc.), which are actual and not simply claimed, so that (a) either a verbal (or written, etc.) or body language or weaponry threat is explicitly made/performed, (b) the threat is reasonably considered either a serious premeditation to commit nonconsensual violence or something with negligent culpability should nonconsensual physical damage result, and (c) the threatened party couldn't reasonably escape or evade the threatened actions should the threatener decide or negligently carry them out at that moment. — Terrapin Station

OK. But we do agree that the threat itself is still a speech act?

Clause (a) in combination with his free speech absolutism means that he's contradicted himself.

You're talking about your own favoured conception of free speech, which to be clear you should be calling absolute free speech. That's the version for fanatics. I'm talking about free speech as defined by the law in the United Kingdom, as I always have been from the very beginning. That's the version for people with a sense of perspective. I made it clear that I was going by a legal definition early on.

Yeah, I hold the conception found in Article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights. These are not fanatics.

You’re speaking of the censorship and regulation of free expression as defined by law.

Yeah, I hold the conception found in Article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights. These are not fanatics.

You’re speaking of the censorship and regulation of free expression as defined by law. — NOS4A2

I also hold the conception found in Article 19 of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. I wasn't calling myself a fanatic. Under U.K. law, that's covered by the first clause. Again, the U.K. is a founding member of the U.N., and we voted in favour of Article 19.

Is it true or false that you have the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers?