It's actually pretty hard for someone with little or no resources to fight defamation as it is. Take away their recourse in an 'all or nothing free speech!' drive, and it's game over. It's also hardly 'a small price', if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up.
And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void.
Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry.
The idea that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing event is a simplistic, extremist position, that doesn't survive contact with the real world. You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech - pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that.
Having the potential for civil action over defamation does not exclude people's right to say what they want. They are merely restricted to saying accurate things or else having to pay some money to the person they've lied about.
I do find it slightly surreal that defamation is being discussed in the context of the UK - a country with (even following the excellent reforms of 2013) the most ridiculous libel laws around.
However, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that civil dispute resolution mechanisms for defamation have to constitute a restriction on speech. People can still say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want. They can merely be called out if they are lying.
Is libel not a civil offence? I.e. the court case is person vs person not state vs person. You confront the person lying in court and if on the balance of probabilities they can't demonstrate what they said to be true then they pay you compensation (plus costs). No one goes to jail, no fines are levied. The government's role is to provide a judge (and potential jury) and court room.
I'm not massively familiar with what happens when someone doesn't pay a debt. As I understand it though. A civil case is heard, bailiff's arrive at the debtors property and their possessions are re-posed until the debt is cleared. These remain civil proceedings not criminal.
I don't think that's quite right. If you allow any speech (which you should, IMO) that is one thing... but it's not the same thing as saying that you can't be held responsible for the outcome of your speech.
To use a different analogy... people always talk about how you can't yell "fire in a crowded theater". I would argue that it should absolutely be legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And if you do so, and nothing happens, then you have committed no crime. OTOH, if you do so and a panic ensues and people are trampled to death, then you will be punished - not for yelling "fire", but for causing the panic that resulted in people being trampled to death.
It might seem like a subtle distinction, but I think it's crucial. You should never be punished for what you say (or think) but you can be punished for actually causing harm to another person (including libel/slander/defamation, etc.)
Maybe it makes sense to special-case speech here, but I'm always more comfortable with ideas that don't need special-casing.
Technically, the speech was allowed. But when harms can be conjured up for any scenario, the speech is not really free anymore.
I'm NOT saying that libel, slander, defamation, and incitement shouldn't be actionable things. I'm just saying that it's impossible to allow all types of speech unless you're willing to strike those concepts altogether.
You can already say this and not get in trouble, though it definitely wouldn't help your case in the event that a rejected black applicant chose to sue you for discrimination. The plaintiff would need to show a preponderance of evidence that they were passed over specifically because of their race and they would've surely been hired otherwise. A general statement showing a dislike for black people isn't sufficient. Discrimination is a civil, not a criminal, offense.
IANAL, this is to the best of my knowledge.
All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me.
>if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up.
They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers that allow them to get up next to the line without crossing it.
>And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void.
Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits.
>Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry.
Freedom of speech still means you are held to that speech when you sign it as a contract. Trying to stretch contract laws as being related to freedom of speech is showing an extreme attempt to stretch.
>a simplistic
It has far more thought to it than the notion that free speech means contract law is void or that discrimination is legalized.
>extremist
Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist.
>that doesn't survive contact with the real world
Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle, no right you have will protect you from someone or something that wants your resources.
>You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech
Yes, for the issues that those in power don't reall care about. Those are the bread and circus; hope we enjoy it.
>pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that.
Appeal to popularity? All goverments also engage in rights violations that we would not stand to defend.
I wasn't even vaguely calling you that directly. I've never noted your handle before now. I was just giving examples of things that people could say.
>if socially powerful people => They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers
I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside.
> Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits.
True, but without restrictions on speech, you don't get defamation suits, and discrimination suits become much harder. Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it.
> Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist.
Nonsense. Since when does being a core right mean any position is extremist? We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured, yet people taking the position that we should not be murdered or tortured are hardly extremist. It's boringly, yawningly mainstream.
> Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle
Reductio ad absurdum. We don't live in the jungle, in the real world.
> Appeal to popularity?
No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so. You're painting imaginary pictures in an idealised black-and-white world. Yet people are demonstrably able to talk, criticise, and be democratic in western democracies. They yap on in bars, on facebook, on twitter, in knitting circles, at football games. Opposing political teams yell shrilly at each other. Folks can go and vote when elections come up.
You're saying that because there are currently some restrictions on free speech, that those things don't exist - and they demonstrably do exist. It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear.
I was saying that under current law, I've been called far worse (and by people who were serious and not just demostrating their point).
>I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside.
Someone in the HOA could already do that. I could potentially sue, but that could also make things worse depending upon the damage done. Even falsely accusing someone of a crime and having them arrested is often not punished except in the case of a repeat offender.
>Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it.
They would not be penalized on that point. It would just add further evidence to a discrimination suit, and if that is the only evidence the suit actually provided, then the suit should fail. Namely, such a statement would be important in showing if a person would have motive, but motive alone is not sufficient to convict someone for discrimination.
>We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured
Depending upon what you mean by murder and torture, we may have far less of such a right than freedom of speech. All laws are enforced at gunpoint proxy (even if the penalty for breaking some law isn't immediately enforced at gunpoint, there is a chain of consequences that will eventually lead to such). And solitary confinement sounds like torture to me.
>No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so.
In the areas that are pre-approved. You think the government really cares about all the fighting about sexism or gay rights? Even terrorism doesn't matter outside of being the trojan horse for draconian laws.
>It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear.
Chillings effects have already begun to be noticed.
I don't think we're going to change each other's minds, but I had to respond to this. It's a standard part of the libertarian rhetoric, and it's intended to make people fear laws just for the sake of it.
And it's intellectually dishonest. In this thread you're arguing that laws should be made to stop the government infringing upon freedom of speech. How, exactly, does that get enforced at gunpoint? If the courts forget themselves and decide to hear a defamation case? Or if the government passes a law that restricts speech, in violation of their free-speech law? Would you have the MPs that voted 'aye' frogmarched off? How does a law limiting the actions of government get 'enforced at gunpoint proxy'?
Similarly, there are plenty of other laws where this doesn't happen. There are laws that companies can break where no person is at risk of prison. It's why there are limited liability companies. And there are laws to give people incentives - here in Australia, the government encourages voluntary payments into your own superannuation, and will co-contribute to some degree. How do you enforce that law at gunpoint? What bizarre chain of events would involve putting anyone at gunpoint because a citizen voluntarily put money into their own superannuation?
There are plenty of laws that aren't 'enforced at gunpoint', even with following a ridiculous, tortured chain of events. Stop spreading libertarian FUD.
>And it's intellectually dishonest.
You haven't demonstrated such.
>How, exactly, does that get enforced at gunpoint?
>How does a law limiting the actions of government get 'enforced at gunpoint proxy'?
Generally a complex system which starts in the courts, wiht the courts making a ruling that applies increasing penalties. Those who continue to ignore such penalties will eventually reach the point of being in contempt of court and either fired or perhaps jailed (it depends upon factors such as who it is). Take the example of a clerk of court refusing to award a marriage license to a gay couple after a federal appeals court struck down a state ban. Something bad is going to happen, which includes losing their job. If they fail to remove themselves from the premise after losing their job, they could be charged with trespassing. If their superior doesn't fire them and continues to pay them, then it gets messier but there are channels, albeit slow moving ones.
Simply put, if there is any point that you can thumb your nose at the court and tell them you are going to ignore them, then it isn't a law, only a suggestion.
Of course, there is a problem when the government does do this (look at three letter agencies ignoring court rulings or otherwise creating secret courts to bypass them). But, at such a point, the laws prohibiting what they are doing are no longer enforced and are thus no longer laws.
>It's why there are limited liability companies.
Who can have their assets seized. What happens when the government comes after an LLC's account due to violations and someone gets in the way?
>And there are laws to give people incentives - here in Australia, the government encourages voluntary payments into your own superannuation, and will co-contribute to some degree. How do you enforce that law at gunpoint?
>What bizarre chain of events would involve putting anyone at gunpoint because a citizen voluntarily put money into their own superannuation?
These are laws about what the government will do if you do X. What happens when someone refuses to credit an account because the account belongs to a minority? They would be fired, but if their supervisor refuses to fire them, it could go to court, where you end up with contempt of court. Refuse to show up in court and you'll be arrested. Resist, and out come the guns.
>There are plenty of laws that aren't 'enforced at gunpoint'
You are making the mistake of considering laws that never get to guns drawn because even unreasonable people don't want to escalate the situation (as well as thinking that 'if A does X, then B does Y' as being laws about A doing X instead of laws about B doing Y).
>Stop spreading libertarian FUD.
Nothing libertarian about it except for how it is worded. If you ignore the rule of law, there will be escalation til physical force is involved. Most people just submit or cut deals long before that happens, but they do so knowing that to resist will escalate.
You missed what I meant by intellectually dishonest. I gave you a few examples of laws that aren't 'gunpoint-enforced', including laws around incentives to do things. Your rebuttal was to invoke a long string of events that eventually resulted in 'trespassing', and invoking 'gunpoint' for that. It's not, however, gunpoint for the original law.
> If you ignore the rule of law, there will be escalation til physical force is involved
This is also part of what I mean by 'intellectually dishonest'. You're claiming that all laws are 'gunpoint' and therefore de facto immoral because you can concoct a long chain of unusual events that ends up with some form of physical law enforcement... but your own requirement for 'all speech should be free' falls into exactly the same pattern. You concoct some government official who refuses to pay into a minority's account, loses their job, refuses to depart the premises. But your own FOS laws do nothing to alter that chain. Slot in a FOS violation for the government official instead of paying into an account, and the chain remains unchanged. From your own reasoning, this means your FOS law is 'gunpoint enforced'.
It's usual for this style of libertarian FUD - claim all laws other than their own proposals are 'violent' or 'at gunpoint', and then skip over the details that their own suggested systems rely on exactly the same mechanisms. And yes, it is libertarian to say things like 'all laws are violent'. No other group takes this baroque standpoint; it's pure libertarian rhetoric. And seriously, laws around governmnet co-contribution are 'violent' because a government employee might lose their job if they don't comply?
See, you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability (defamation).
Defamation, libel, etc. laws are necessary to prevent abuse of speech to the point it causes financial damage via falsehoods.
However, it does not require government censorship and prior restraint which is what the UK Government is advocating.
----
EDIT (to get around post timer, this is the last time I'm responding to you because your argument is just disingenuous at best):
...that is such a disingenuous argument that I'm assuming you are just are oblivious.
> So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted.
No one is suggesting people are suddenly immune to contract law or NDAs, which solve this problem. You simply sue such people for breech of contract until its not financially profitable to sell such information.
> And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship.
...no?
NDAs also solve this problem and/or a requirement for NDAs.
The problem with free speech restriction is not that you can't ask people to sign NDAs in return for a job. The problem with free speech restrictions is when it restraints everyone.
I really don't think you are getting the concept that:
A) Everyone has a right to exercise their freedom of speech without restriction.
B) If they lie, break a contractual obligation, or otherwise cause destruction...they can still be forced to suffer civil financial penalties via the Courts to deter such activities without massive justification. None of this requires Government censorship beyond "NHS employees must sign NDAs" [e.g. Snowden would have stayed in the US if he would have been bankrupted rather than thrown in prison for decades, I bet]
It seems that you are casually ignoring the points I made in my third and fourth paragraphs.
Anyway, you can argue against the UK's new laws without requiring complete purism in freedom of speech. But my point was that an absolutist stance is simplistic. So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted. They can't lose their jobs - or even suffer reduced chance of advancement - because that would be seen as a punishment, a restriction of speech. iscrimination point I raised.
And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship.
There's all sorts of sticky areas where extreme purist views get sullied from contact with the real world.
The truth will out. You can't fool all the people all the time. Etc.
And the thing is, you don't really need to fool all the people, just most. Unfortunately, it seems that willful ignorance is the norm in many areas, and while I agree that reality has a tendency to win out in the long term, it can do a lot of damage in the short term.
Then there's the opposite problem, privatized indoctrination where billionaires like News Corp's Murdoch get to influence millions with his propaganda.
Then the internet was supposed to save us but it turns out people like living in their own indoctrination bubbles and the internet is more than happy to provide it for them.
Therefore free society should recognise people as rational beings
and leave them to discover the truth by their own devices.
Well put ... and does not absolve anyone of the consequences of their speech. People keep forgetting that exercise of rights have consequences for which they may/must be held accountable for. Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say.
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The US Bill of Rights is simply an acknowledgment of the inalienable right to free speech, is it not a definition. The role of the US Constitution is to define the powers of the US federal government. The absence of a protection from private attacks on free speech is not an endorsement thereof. It's simply the nature of the document.
All too often I see the expression, "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." In fact, that's precisely what it is. The freedom to say what you want without being punished for doing so, whether that punishment be execution, imprisonment, social exclusion or anything else. Society seems to be accepting some limitations to free speech (i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theater, personal political opinions having professional ramifications, etc.). If we've decided, as a society, that it is necessary to limit free speech then let's be honest about it. We should not present those limitations as some inevitable part of having free speech in the first place.
Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. That we have decided consequences are sometimes necessary is a testament to how much we value freedom of speech.
Don't confuse punishing someone for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater regardless of reason for doing so, with punishing someone for instigating a crushing stampede by yelling "fire!" in a theater when there knowingly wasn't a threat thereof. Both are certainly "consequences"; I'm concerned that some here seem unclear of the difference and would protect the speaker in the latter case on grounds conflated with the former.
I disagree that the difference you've identified truly exists. In some cases we punish a speaker based on how others reacted to what they said, in some cases we don't. We deliberate on these things on a case-by-case basis, there's no consistent rule.
Absolutely we can, but we need to be careful in how we do so and we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible.
Niceties like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" help us easily accept more restrictions on speech - in fact they make those restrictions seem like common sense! As a society, though, we should be ultra-vigilant when it comes to protecting our speech and only restrict it when we are absolutely sure it is necessary. I'm not just talking about legal restrictions here, either, cultural restrictions are just as important. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where the "mode of expression" being restricted is, say, talking to friends in a bar.
Agreed. I was only trying to produce a notion of speech that we can safely declare inviolable. There may be a gray area between that which is certainly black or white. Having those boundaries lets us explore it while mitigating the slippery slope.
In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? It's your fault for saying whatever you said! You should have been more careful!
Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
Monty Python addresses that issue quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY
You do realize that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is not the kind with negative consequences for innocent bystanders, don't you? It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater.
The poster whom I responded to didn't seem aware of these distinctions, which is why I snarked at him.
> Do I really have to explain the concept?
No, you don't.
> Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
But I guess it's alright to have liars, crooks and wannabe-tyrants in there?
I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof.
If there IS a fire, then by all means yell "fire!" accordingly.
I've twice seen Penn Jillette stand on stage before thousands, juggling flaming torches, pontificating loudly about and proceeding to yell "fire!"
I've seen the movie _Backdraft_ in a movie theater; there was much yelling of "fire!" therein.
And, of course, if you scare a crowd into a life-threatening stampede by yelling "fire!" when there isn't one, then you're culpable for any harm that follows.
All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard, as I'm sure you're aware. So I can't see a reason to spend this much time discussing yelling "fire" in a theater.
> All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
I portrayed nothing of the sort. Here's what I originally said:
>> In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh?
But nevermind, we've probably wasted enough of each other's time here.
This is the whole point of the discussion, right here. You're discriminating against a certain type of speech because you've judged it to be the wrong kind of speech. Once you've set a precedent that the wrong kind of speech can be infringed, you no longer have free speech - you have a struggle for the power to define allowed speech and disallowed speech.
It seems like you are unnecessarily conflating speech and the consequences of speech.
You probably know it, but that's a lazy false dilemma.
The point was just that there are much more obvious problems with people in positions of power than not being able to distinguish with punishment for using one's vocal chords and punishment for whatever it caused.
A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc.
(There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)
A problem is that the fourth amendment is itself under attack as well...
In other words, it's perfectly natural and convenient to behave like the "free" and "extreme" tattooed apes pandered to in modern television commercials, whereas it takes relative effort be polite and follow the golden rule.
Ask yourself who is more "free", the chair-throwers on Jerry Springer, or, Scott's Rob Roy who was shackled for refusing to lie about a stranger.
America, given its near constant prating about freedom, is itself in dire need of a dialectic on its essence.
If you are locked away and your speach censored, then rising above your animal instincts does you, at best, only personal good. If you are not locked away, then rising above your animal instincts could let you do good to some larger fraction of the world.
-- John Adams
Sure sounds pretty, though.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015...
The problem (as usual) with the US law system is that it allows unconstitutional laws to pass through the legislative and executive bodies (which aren't specialized in the Constitution, just in the "will of the People") without official judicial preview. It can then take decades (if ever) to verify if a law that makes something illegal is actually constitutional (at the Supreme Court).
That's how you end up with unconstitutional laws 5 decades later, and some lower Court judges just end up upholding that law because they don't want to upset the cart, allowing for the existence of the law decades more.
See the recent ruling on Patriot Act's bulk collection. It took 14 years just to reach an Appeals Court. If the USA Freedom Act reinstates some of Patriot Act's unconstitutional powers, it may take another 14 years before it reaches the same level.
I don't think it's controversial in Western societies that freedom of expression, especially in spoken or written form, is one of the most important rights of a free society, and as such is worthy of protection. Other actions associated with that speech may not be protected, so we need to distinguish between them.
The U.S. approach is a pretty good one. It defines "speech" as almost anything expressive, and focuses the analysis instead on whether any restraints on speech involve the content of the speech. Protesting is protected in the U.S., which it would not be under a "speech" versus "speech plus other action" dichotomy. The attended activity may be limited, but not based on the content of the speech. Hate speech laws have been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional, because they ban particular types of expression based on content.
I'll say that even given only my real world experience with hearing local opinion on the matter, there is in fact quite a controversy around the concept. This isn't even taking into account the similar opinions coming through in forms of media that aren't real-time, in-person conversation.
That freedom of expression is even an important principle is not something where there's clear-cut agreement. There exists dissent aplenty.
Also, I'm not as clear yet on my views of the rights of protesting and assembly. I consider these important, but I have not yet thought through them and they may not need to be so binary in nature.
Unfortunately, the only checks on this vast power--vast especially now given the ability of mass point-to-point communication--are caused by a decent education and the ability to use said education to think critically about things.
The sad fact of the matter, though, is that at least half of everyone is below-average in this regard, and not only not worthy of such freedom but indeed likely to make life miserable for the other half by way of doing such things as parroting nonsense or abuse.
It's still freedom of speech.
Nonsense. Freedoms are never unlimited. I can't think of any that would even be unlimited in idealistic worlds like software licensing. Can you name any?
Unrestricted freedom is anarchy. Give me ultimate freedom of speech and I'll stand outside your house with a megaphone calling your family illegitimate so you can't sleep. (Ok I won't, but I promise you people will)
"Endless Buffet, king crab legs limited to 5lbs. a guest"
"Freedom, except you can't do that thing."
I'm perfectly free to, and I would, harass a rape victim for any aggression against me that would compel me to harass any other person.
I've never seen such stupidity posted on HN. Congratulations.
The problem IMO is ‘the internet’ mixes the three basic types of speech. Things that feel private often don't end up that way.
PS: A mortician making a book based on autopsy photos seems reasonable. But, sending those same photos to a parole officer or someone else you know less likely to be acceptable. Though in book form it is once again probably ok, same content different context.
Yes in theory. In practice too much of the population are bad at legal issues and would not ensure they get their doctor to sign a NDA and would be screwed.
In the same way that any contractual clause purporting to enslave a natural person, even with their consent, is still void.
No it doesn't.
>In the same way that any contractual clause purporting to enslave a natural person, even with their consent, is still void.
Such a contract is banned because of how one-sided it would be. Even a contract for selling property can be overturned if it is too one-sided. The difference being is that there are many fair contracts for exchanging property while there are none for enslavement. Compare this to indenture servitude, where some variants are allowed, though they include some way to break away.
Consider that a person owning their own creations, something largely considered quite absolute, does not preclude them entering in a contract where such creations are owned by the other party.
The core difference here is that the government cannot punish you for information you gave or received. You can have a civil case for breaking a fair contract you consented to (and if court ordered damages are not paid, you can then be guilty of contempt of court).
Is speech protected only in so far as that we agree with it and that should someone say something we're not comfortable with (e.g., "I hate the US policy in Country X and think the US should be stopped") we should have the right to stop them, or should there be no barriers on it whatsoever?
0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Comman...
But that doesn't work because Schelling points are subjective. You can't reliably convince everyone that some specific arbitrary threshold should never be crossed, because it will surely lead to doom. Some might agree, and others will see things in a different way.
That's why it's pointless to even try, and that's why it's pointless to think about freedom of speech in terms of Schelling points.
So how about just pretending there's a Schelling point at 100% of freedom of speech? Any concession from that will inevitably lead to more, and besides, losing our freedom of speech is not a clear-cut phenomenon anyway.
It's a bit like new currency entering circulation at various points in the economy - some people's perceptions of what's acceptable will shift before others', but will in turn affect the perceptions of others around them. Freedom of speech rots in arbitrary, unpredictable and uneven ways.
When applied to some action that hasn't been tried yet, I'm not sure that statement has ever been true. In fact, I largely see the advancement of humanity as people trying pointless things until they stumble upon the few things that work. I can imagine there have been many times and many peoples in the past that when considering their own government, thought that human nature and the the nature of power would never allow a different governing system than the one they knew.
Things change, and it's largely due to a few doing what the majority consider "pointless", and accomplishing the "impossible".
Alright. Try melting steel with your mind. It's reasonably likely that's never been attempted before, so I guess it's not pointless to try, right?
You're basically just saying "extreme statements are unlikely to be true", but while that's often an accurate observation, especially when discussing groups of people, it's not really relevant to what I said.
On the other hand, what I said earlier boils down to "it's pointless to attempt something that can't be done". I fail to see how that warrants lodging a complaint like yours.
> On the other hand, what I said earlier boils down to "it's pointless to attempt something that can't be done". I fail to see how that warrants lodging a complaint like yours.
But you've provided no real evidence that it can't be done, have you? Trying provides that first bit of evidence, in whatever direction it goes. I'm all for prioritizing what we try, but stating something is pointless to try when it hasn't yet been tried implies you not only have perfect knowledge of all the variables that constitute the outcome, but can also use them to correctly predict the outcome. I feel fairly safe in asserting that neither you, nor any other person alive, is truly capable of that. As such, nothing is truly "pointless". It may be undesirable for a number of reasons, but pointless is not one of them.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for argument's sake. I truly believe that that the original idea has enough merit to at least try. That's not to say the outcome will be as hoped, but that doesn't mean we won't learn something in the doing. Is that not why we try things? To learn?
As to whether my actions were pointless, there decidedly were not. I enjoyed putting my opinions down, and thinking about the matter, so in that manner it entertained me for a while. An upvote received leads me to believe someone found some merit in what I said, whether it be a reinforcement of their existing views, a fresh look at something they hadn't thought much about, or some other reason. Your thoughts on how pointless it was for me are, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. To some degree, so are my own thoughts. We don't control how important something is, we simply strive to steer it to our desired level of influence. How much control do you truly have over whether you remember this exchange a year from now?
To play devil's advocate, what about treason (or some other form of state secret sharing)? When Julius (and allegedly) Ethyl Rosenberg shared secrets from the Manhattan Project with the Soviets, should it have been a crime, let alone a capital one?
Conversely, if the government can say that certain speech is Treason, what stops it from declaring any speech it doesn't like Treason?
Also, the ability to classify nothing is preferable to the ability to classify anything as the power will be abused with increasing extents.
So, for instance, if you are using cryptography to secure a transmission, you don't rely on eavesdroppers not knowing what algorithms and protocols you are using. You rely on them not knowing your keys.
Free speech as a right to abuse people is not something I want to see in Europe.
I don't see these as being the same. I think there is something wrong with the common English language usage that we use the same term to cover multiple definitions.
Given that the go-to rhetoric of so many political and religious groups is to be "offended" as a substitute for being right, laws that restrict 'hate' speech or 'abuse' speech create more legal cover for the people who are least willing to cope with criticism than the people who are most vulnerable to abuse.
And, usually, you will find that the people who are least willing to cope with criticism are the people who should be most criticized, because no one's ideas are sacrosanct.
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to listen, or not to listen. Abuse and hate can be countered with more robust freedom of speech, more social shunning, more economic boycotting--it does not require government intervention to curb all the 'isms'.
The government should decide because that's what the government is for. If the government doesn't get it right, then the people should hold the government accountable.
In my opinion, Western governments lack sufficient accountability, but I still trust them to decide more than I trust an all-or-nothing anti-philosophical principle.
You can make the argument that by boycotting abusive business, like for example Chick fil A and their actions against homosexuals, you speak against the business in the only language they understand, money.
If a society decides that abusive speech is a special case that must not be tolerated, it also has to define what "abusive speech" is. This requires, by its very nature, a subjective and often emotional interpretation. That society must also determine whether unintentionally abusive speech is a crime.
If the law is charged with protecting people against abusive or potentially abusive speech, it has to have powers necessary to do so. This requires the power to censor, the power to silence dissenting voices, and the power to (re)interpret the words of others based on the emotional reaction of anyone who hears those words (which may not be the intended audience).
Those powers undermine the use of speech for all purposes, not just ones that society deems appropriate.
I don't understand why people seem to think that any kind of distinction here can be enforced without undermining free speech as a whole. By way of example, you have property rights and if, by exercising them, you erect a hideous statue on your property which your neighbor finds offensive, your neighbor has no right to have the statue torn down simply because he finds it distasteful.
Freedom of speech is only really valuable when you're saying something that someone might want to censor. Nobody cares if you're saying something everyone already agrees with.
Also on this unrelated topic, exactly the opposite is common in Europe.
In the UK, you would need planning permission to place a statue, a process which allows a neighbour to voice their objection to the planning committee of the local government.
e.g.
http://www.cherwell.org/news/2009/02/19/gormley-statue-place...
And this is considered normal and accepted. You don't get to place offensive statues in public.
And if you take that to mean "people" as any group of people, then it means you aren't free to speak out against ISIS, or the attackers at Charlie Hebdo, or those doing things you think are objectively wrong.
In parts of the world now, it is not socially acceptable to speak out against the actions of Israel, as such critiques are considered anti-Semitic. Maybe this is fair, but if the Israeli state begins decapitating innocent people in the streets, should you be allowed to condemn it publicly?
It's a nice fantasy that the disenfranchised could somehow be immune from hateful or critical speech, but to suggest that there's ever any group that qualifies as saintly enough to deserve such protections is, I think, naive at best.
You're saying that criticism is a form of abuse, and you imply that therefore that we must allow abuse.
Criticism alone isn't a form of abuse. We should allow criticism and forbid abuse.
In the former, you get to state your opinions publicly but then have to defend them, but no secrets are kept.
0: http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad...
I will say this one area is probably the harshest test of the viewpoint, especially giving current social norms and morals. And I will say that the view point isn't perfect, only the best of the limited choices available. As such, there are areas where the outcomes are less than ideal.
And of course, production of such material would still involve a horrific crime that would be met with extremely harsh punishment. It may even force authorities to focus on producers, which would increase the number of children rescued.
Also, I think there was an attempt to make gore illegal (at least when it was real individuals) but it was ruled as protected (in the US, don't know about other countries).
EDIT To make things clear.
I used the words child abuse images.
This may have been a hint that I was talking about images of actual child abuse rather than selfies taken by teenagers.
We are in a discussion about an ideal world. Let's imagine that if we were really in a position that governments were legislating about absolute freedom of speech they could also draw up some non stupid laws to protect victims of child abuse?
No, they are a crime in se.
Child pornography is special in that possession of child pornography is automatically a crime, even if the person didn't know the pictures were of children[0], or even if they person didn't know they had them.
Let's say your 16-year-old friend, as a joke, puts a nude photo of himself/herself on your phone. If a policeman searches you and finds it, and you admit you were in possession of the phone before the search, you are automatically guilty of possession of child pornography, even if you can prove you didn't know the photo was there.
I'll say it again: if you admit to possessing something that is later found to have contained child pornography while it was in your possession, you are automatically guilty of possession of child pornography.
[0] e.g. a 17-year-old who looks much older
Agreed. However, they are also evidence that a child has been abused and this was my point. That images of abuse are not speech in the sense of exchange of ideas, opinions and facts and don't need to be protected by free speech laws.
"Child porn" is defined very broadly, and is a very politically loaded term. Many things that are defined legally as child porn would not be considered evidence of abuse by many (most?) people.
If you're 16 and snap a photo of your junk in the locker room and send it to your teammates as a prank[0], you are all guilty of possession of child porn. Who abused whom here?
There are also many things that are defined legally as child porn that are unambiguously abuse, in very horrific ways. But the problem is that they're both conflated when you use the term "child porn", which is both overloaded and politically charged.
[0] Yes, this happens. Teenagers are weird.
I used the words child abuse images.
This may have been a hint that I was talking about images of actual child abuse rather than selfies taken by teenagers.
We are in a discussion about an ideal world. Let's imagine that if we were really in a position that governments were legislating about absolute freedom of speech they could also draw up some non stupid laws to protect victims of child abuse?
Also to note, under current law, those selfies are images of abuse. It may seem absurd that the law considers such an action as abusive, but that is just because the sometimes is absurd.
A key problem which this solves, and which is a terrible side-effect of such law as currently implemented, is crushing punishment of those oblivious to their possession of such content (say, malware surreptitiously caches such content on your computer, then anonymously sics CSI SVU et al on you).
I actually didn't downvote you, but the problem is that you're making a lot of assumptions when you say "child porn", and you're ignoring a key way that that child porn is already treated specially by the law[0].
If you're 17 and your 17-year-old boyfriend/girlfriend texts you a nude selfie, that's child porn. If your phone is confiscated before you even open the text, you're guilty of possession of child porn.
If you're 5, and your parent or relative sexually abuses you and records the events on film, that's child porn even if they don't distribute it. If they do, everyone who receives it is in possession of evidence of your abuse.
Child porn is evidence of a crime, but the question is, crime by whom? In the first case case, it's not clear morally that the person who unknowingly received a nude selfie from an underage person committed a crime, even though legally the law treats both cases as identical.
[0] For contrast, if you are found in possession of drugs, you can theoretically make the defense that you didn't know you had them. It's a weak defense, but it is legally possible - with child porn, even if you succeed in convincing the judge/jury of that fact, it doesn't affect your case one bit.
From this, I've moved to adopting an ever stricter view of all speech as being free. I will not say it is perfect as it does have flaws. But the flaws are a small price to pay to ensure one of the axiomatic rights is defended. For without free speech, we lose the power to criticize, to discuss, to be democratic.
While I know the author isn't regarded quite as highly in the UK and the US, I think the following passage captures the importance of the exchange of information being free.
>The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.