Just repetition at this point.

For the analogy to work, it only has to demonstrate that more people will be exposed to the material than if it were expressed in private. It is self evident. Or are you saying publishing speech doesn’t reach a wider audience? — Punshhh

Im saying I don’t care. I do not recognize/accept your exclusion of published material as separate from free speech. Free speech isnt about how many people are reached. I make no distinction between public or private free speech on this matter.

Yes and the police will do their job. I would think that the police would only look into it after a specific public order issue has been brought to their attention.

I agree that some content on social media is harmless when it reaches a wider audience. But there is a spectrum of material and there is a clear phenomena of populists, or bad actors, for whatever reason exploiting the process. This is also on the police’s radar.

There is also a pattern emerging in these debates. It only seems to be issues given publicity by the right wing press, or populists groups where there is a free speech concern. When the speech doesn’t not fit these agendas, it is of no concern. Indeed it is often the same people who might start saying this other speech should be restricted. It’s odd that, isn’t it? — Punshhh

As Ive said, incitement and libel. The “spectrum of material” has to be directly and clearly one of those otherwise my stance is it should not be restricted.
Certainly not jokes and certainly not opinion, whatever they may be.

Cool, that’s your prerogative. I didn’t see an issue particularly when I first took to social media. But then I kept hearing stories of posters being sued for defamation. Then I realised that posting on social media is legally a form of publishing. To publish speech is to amplify it, meaning that large numbers of people will hear it. This makes it a special kind of free speech, the freedom to communicate what you have to say to large numbers of people. It’s like walking around in a crowd of people with a loud haler shouting everything you’re thinking, so that everyone there has to hear it. — Punshhh

Its not like that at all, no one is forcing people to read and listen to published material so your analogy fails.

Well the police have a role to play in society, they are experts at their job and that job includes maintaining public order, amongst many other things. — Punshhh

Some things are worth authoritarian control, like preventing murder or rape and aforementioned incitement (direct incitement) or libel. Not opinions, jokes or pugs doing the nazi salute (yes, even to a wide audience) are not. Indeed the police have more important things to do, such as preventing murder or rape.

You can say anything you like, or teach your dog anything you like in private, or in a non public space. When you do it in a public space there may be a risk of incitement, or abuse, of others, such as vulnerable groups sharing that space. The authorities will police those spaces with an eye to public order. On most occasions the risk is low, so the authorities will not intervene.

When it comes to publishing the law is more strict because the extent of exposure could increase exponentially and is unpredictable. — Punshhh

As you’ve stated already yes. I just dont buy the distinction as I’ve already stated. The same argument was used for violence in video games or movies, even comic books. It wasnt convincing then either.
“May” be “risk” of incitement or abuse (huh?) is flimsy and weak as a basis for authoritarian control.

If you can give an example of speech which is becoming more restricted I’d be interested to know. Then we would have something to debate. — Punshhh

You would call them hate speech Id imagine, hate speech is free speech to me though so short if direct incitement or libel I think it should be protected. Certainly no one should be going to jail or paying a fine for teaching their girlfriends pug to Nazi salute, if you want an example.

Didnt mean to be combative, but I see now the opening tone of that text could be taken that way. Apologies.
I compared Davies method to free speech controls, not all methods. I will take your word for it that financial methods have worked best. My point was that speech control isnt an effective method.

So…no problem with free speech to see here.

So…no problem to see here.

I see, thank you.

Riots are the “public order” issue. Peoples feelings do not justify violence. Public order is maintained through laws other than free speech laws, like no rioting and violence and looting.

The UK is fucked on free speech. Its insane so many refuse to even admit there is a problem, but humans are gonna human what can you do?

i see, thanks. I was curious about the answers to my other questions as well.

“Also, do you think that moral philosophers are motivated by control?
Without proper moral “control” in place, do you think immoral behaviours would just run rampant?
Lastly, are you including self control when you are talking about social control?“

As they are by the authorities. Unfortunately the tabloid press and the populists don’t operate to the same high standards. — Punshhh

Incitement is just as easily used as an excuse that shut down free speech when it is wielded as a weapon by press and authorities. Thats why its tricky with incitement, it becomes a tool of politics and culture wars. Bad actors in the press and in positions of authority are exactly the reason free speech is so so so important. Free speech protects all other rights and authoritarians, dictators etc always come for language and speech first.

I think he was suggesting I was acting in bad faith, not you. — Punshhh

Ah, I see what he meant now.

This is the issue which keeps coming up in this thread. That the row over free speech takes situations where incitement and racial prejudice are occurring in a public arena insisting that it is a free speech issue. It isn’t, it’s a public order issue. — Punshhh

You snuck racial prejudice in there. That isnt incitement. By Incitement I mean direct calls to violence. Expressing opinions other than that, no matter how much I disagree or am disgusted by, is free speech.

Where it occurs in private, not in a public arena it is allowed (within reason) and there are no restrictions on what you can say. But in a public space, it can be amplified by group activity and bad actors can use it to stir up a crowd. — Punshhh

Thats the responsibility of the bad actors and the crowd. As long as there is not a direct call to violence its free speech and I want it protected.

Yes, incitement is a bit murky. Any laws surrounding it should be carefully considered.

That's a serious problem (to me), and while Dingo is quite stepping on the right tiles here, that remains within your analysis, to be addressed. The ECHR does have problems. But that's an entirely different conversation and suggesting that's Dingo's next step is not good faith. — AmadeusD

What now? You suspect Im not acting on good faith?

Good point. I should make a few exceptions for those things. I had in mind opinions but you’re right libel and incitement laws are important. Those aren’t just opinions, they are also attack vectors. Its a fairly clear distinction to me so I failed to consider them, thanks.

Without legal consequences for sure, and not the consequences of a self righteous mob calling for your head to get fired etc

Im not concerned about that distinction Im afraid, I don’t care whether its published or not. For me the issue is about arbitration, who gets to decide what I or anyone else is allowed to say. I certainly do not trust the government or some legion of self righteous twats to decide. Freedom of speech is about protecting your other rights, throughout history oppression always comes for speech first. The most effective way to combat bad or dangerous ideas is with good ideas, correcting ignorance with discussion. Suppressing it only shoves it under the surface like a festering cancer until one day a bunch of assholes in white hoods show up at someone's door. M
You want to learn how to actually combat racism? Google Daryl Davies. Single handedly done more to combat racism than all the speech control efforts combined.

Ok

The fact that not all social control is related to ethics or morality does not mean that ethics and morality are not types of social control. — T Clark

Im curious how you would differentiate between social control and social responsibility. The responsibility IS the control?
Also, do you think that moral philosophers are motivated by control?
Without proper moral “control” in place, do you think immoral behaviours would just run rampant?
Lastly, are you including self control when you are talking about social control?

Freedom comes with responsibility. You are perfectly free to do anything within your physical and mental capacities. — I like sushi

The free speech issue is about punitive laws, not about anyones actual ability to speak or act. That people face prison time for jokes or because some sucktit decides it offends them should concern us all.
Also, suppressing speech doesn't address the actual problem. Banning language (say some racist term or phrase) doesnt stop the views from being held it just pushes the folks who hold those views into the shadows. I prefer my racists, especially violent ones, right out in the open where I can see them.

What can I say Im an optimistic person.

Within your sarcasm, you are correct that I am putting forward a specific theory for describing or diagnosing or understanding the mentality of atheists. It can come out as hostile or polemical sometimes because I'm not an atheist myself, but at the same time, everybody forms some understanding or model of what their ideological opponents are thinking and having that out in the open where it can be examined or critqued is better than leaving it unexamined. — BenMcLean

There are plenty of atheists here, you would do well to aak what they believe (or dont believe) and why rather than try and tell them what them what they believe (or dont) and why.
What you are telling atheists they think and believe (or dont) is not accurate to a single atheist I ever met so I doubt the accuracy of your claims.

I think you do make a solitary but solid point. It is true that some atheists come to it for emotional reasons rather than through reason. They may equip themselves with atheist arguments but the truth of how they came to be atheist is quite similar to what they mock or look down upon religious folk for. Ive met atheists like that. They are a minority in my experience.

Have we checked if this guy is…Bartricks I think It was?
Sounds awfully familiar and he clearly has a “book reader” ax to grind.

Ah, I see.

Thats not what incitement means.

Well, I don’t believe incitement is a real thing, so the answer for me is yes. However, if incitement was possible, you could just as easily incite them to peace and love, incite them to change their minds, incite them to join your side. So why don’t you just do that instead of violating everyone’s rights and shrinking the margins of everyone’s existence? — NOS4A2

If incitement is a real thing not all incitement is equal. If incitement is real then certain things would seem easier to incite than others, no? Someone who is in a highly emotional state of anger who is also full of hatred towards someone or something then it is easier to incite them to violence towards it. That is, if we are supposing its possible to incite at all then I think you also have to suppose not all incitement is equal in the effort required.
I dont see a problem with that, since its easily observed in instances of what people call “incitement”. A soldier is much more easily incited to violence than a pacifist monk and so on.
So to answer your question about inciting people to peace rather than conflict, it is because people in a frenzy or charged environment like a protest are easier to incite to violence than to peace.
At least thats the answer if we presuppose incitement is possible.

Assuming he is 'wrong' is anti-philosophical. — I like sushi

I i didnt assume, I just read what he said. Evidently we had very different takes on that. Alas, Bob is no longer with us to clarify.

I understand, it just doesnt seem like he was talking about the use and meaning of homosexuality to me. It seemed pretty clear he was concerned about the morality of homosexuality.
To your point about “not happening now” I think its always better to have the discussion but Im assuming that was done? Jamal said he was warned. Im sure somebody tried to explain how wrong he was at some point to no avail given his last post.

The thing is this is the exact kind of questioning front and centre in mainstream academia. — I like sushi

Huh? The immorality of homosexuality? Where're you from?

But he was so meek and nice about his bigotry!

Was my comment removed? What did I say?
Is it because I said “fucked”?

The main reason Christianity is so popular is because it was enforced by violence and conquest, shoved forcefully down the throats of the conquered. Sure, today it doesnt operate that way for the most part but it wouldnt be so entrenched in western culture without its violent, authoritarian beginnings. Islam is the same but hasnt grown up past the violence and subjugation.

They are political positions, wouldn't the driving force be political change?
Also, compassion can be a driving force but be tempered by practicality, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
Im trying to understand how you have boiled progressivism and conservatism down to these particular “driving force’s”.

Is the implication that non- progressivism is not compassionate? That is to say, unless compassion is exclusive to progressivism then I dont see how you can usw it as the basis for progressivism the way you are.

Right. I think we put all the other low brow discussions in the Lounge, and I thought that was an improvement. I think they just missed this one. — frank

The “low brow” doesnt come from forum categories or topic, it comes from the participants. Trolls need food, don’t feed them.

Agreed. But considering this is someone who has LONG held a grudge against me, mostly for pointing how inane his posts are, it’s not a surprise. How he’s even still here given his thousands of Twitter-like quality posts is a wonder. — Mikie

Says the guy who consistently makes both the climate change thread, and others, crappy. — Mikie

You have a stunning lack of self awareness.

When did this forum become so sensitive? Did I miss a memo?
Thank the person for identifying themselves as someone not to engage with and move to on, the adult way. Tattle tailing, feigning grievance, these are a childs way.