When Should Speech be Censored?

[Sunstone]

When should speech be censored? Why?




Great read: Political Correctness is Devouring Itself by Nick Cohen.

 

[HonestJoe]

When should speech be censored? Why?

I know, but I’m not allowed to tell you.

Seriously, I think the basic principle should be if it will or is likely to cause significant harm. Obviously the difficulty is in agreeing what is harmful and what is significant. Incidentally, I don’t see anything special about speech. The same principles should apply to all personal freedoms equally.

 

[Thief]

NEVER!

I cite....Louis Black and Ron White as prime examples of political and social AND religious commentary

and they are damn funny

 

[YmirGF]

When should speech be censored? Why?




Great read: Political Correctness is Devouring Itself by Nick Cohen.

What a great article, @Sunstone

It is so dense that I will need some time to unpack it though I do think what the writer is saying is pretty right on the money.

 

[Sunstone]

I know, but I’m not allowed to tell you.

Seriously, I think the basic principle should be if it will or is likely to cause significant harm. Obviously the difficulty is in agreeing what is harmful and what is significant. Incidentally, I don’t see anything special about speech. The same principles should apply to all personal freedoms equally.

Would you limit the "significant harm" to physical harm? Or would you include emotional or psychological harm in the mix?

 

[Thief]

when I was sooooooooooo much younger.....
I was one those overly sensitive kids

and the teachers of my life helped me to thicken my skin

thanks to them!!!!!!!

as for the politically correct......they will go to hell

(just saying.......as a matter of free speech)

let me know if you might be offended
I'm sure we can work it out

 

[HonestJoe]

Would you limit the "significant harm" to physical harm? Or would you include emotional or psychological harm in the mix?

Well that’s part of the difficulty I mentioned so what I alone think isn’t the be-all and end-all. For what it’s worth, I don’t think relevant harm can be limited to physical or even immediate and individual. It’s more about assessing the overall consequences of the speech (or actions) and establishing the point where those consequences are so bad as to justify restrictions.

This is essentially what we do now and societies have done for a long time. The only real differences are who decides where the lines are drawn and how. Even saying there are no lines at all would be a decision someone would need to make on that basis.

 

[Thief]

Well that’s part of the difficulty I mentioned so what I alone think isn’t the be-all and end-all. For what it’s worth, I don’t think relevant harm can be limited to physical or even immediate and individual. It’s more about assessing the overall consequences of the speech (or actions) and establishing the point where those consequences are so bad as to justify restrictions.

This is essentially what we do now and societies have done for a long time. The only real differences are who decides where the lines are drawn and how. Even saying there are no lines at all would be a decision someone would need to make on that basis.

you might not like what I say....or how I said it....
but would you defend to the death?......my right to say it

 

[eldios]

When should speech be censored? Why?


Great read: Political Correctness is Devouring Itself by Nick Cohen.

No speech should be censored but anyone who speaks words that offend someone else will learn that they might be killed for their thoughts.

 

[Sunstone]

This is essentially what we do now and societies have done for a long time.

Until relatively recently, wasn't the consensus in the West pretty much Mill's physical harm principle?

 

[Thief]

Until relatively recently, wasn't the consensus in the West pretty much Mill's physical harm principle?

who is Mill

oooops......skipped the name when I scanned the report

nevermind

 

[HonestJoe]

you might not like what I say....or how I said it....
but would you defend to the death?......my right to say it

I don't like what you say but I certainly support your right to say it to exactly the same extent as I support the same right for anyone else (and with exactly the same conditions). "To the death" might by pushing it but I'd certainly go out of my way if necessary.

 

[HonestJoe]

Until relatively recently, wasn't the consensus in the West pretty much Mill's physical harm principle?

I’m no expert but I don’t think that’s explicitly limited to physical harm. There’s a distinction made between offence and harm but I don’t think there is such a simply dividing line such as physical/non-physical, not least because of different definitions and interpretation of those terms, especially when you get in to areas such as psychological or the digital world. Like I say, it's really one thick fuzzy line.

 

[Thief]

I don't like what you say but I certainly support your right to say it to exactly the same extent as I support the same right for anyone else (and with exactly the same conditions). "To the death" might by pushing it but I'd certainly go out of my way if necessary.

it's the 'conditions' part that I will not defend

you can say anything you want.....that is freedom

if I get my feelings hurt......my problem

you're only free if my problems are my problems

if I burden you with my speech?.......what shall we do?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

When should speech be censored? Why?




Great read: Political Correctness is Devouring Itself by Nick Cohen.

Never.

This whole concept of a 'right' to not be offended is ludicrous, a slippery slope into madness and facism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Speech should be censored when we no longer value personal freedom and personal responsibility.

 

[leibowde84]

When should speech be censored? Why?




Great read: Political Correctness is Devouring Itself by Nick Cohen.

I think the restrictions in the US are perfectly adequate. "Hate speech" should be met with more speech. If someone is so upset due to ridicule of their religion or even personally that they act out in violent or destructive ways, that is 100% on them.

 

[Politesse]

The speech of a free citizen on their private time should never be censored. Even hate speech should not be censored, though I am fine with charging someone with inciting violence or making explicit threats, if they have. I am also okay with the fact that as a government employee and thus a representative, there are many things I can and should not say while in my public role. My classroom is different from my Facebook page, and it is actually pro-democratic for that to be the case, as my students should not have to feel threatened in my classroom, whether for political or religious or racial or whatever other reason. That prevents them from getting an education, which is a right of every citizen.

 

[HonestJoe]

it's the 'conditions' part that I will not defend

So your doctor should be free to talk publically about your medical treatment, your accountant about your finances, your lawyer about you legal cases? People should be free to stand outside your window at 3am and blare loud music, put child-porn on billboards, advertise their products as being “Made in America” or “GM free” even if that’s a lie? Slander and libel should be fair game with no come-back, even if they destroy someone’s business, career or private-life? Can I falsely accuse you of raping me and get away with it even if I’m found out?

You might draw your lines at a different place to me but you’ll still draw lines somewhere.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Robert Heinlein, the author, addressed this a long time ago. In two novellas, "If This Goes On... " and the sequel, Coventry.

Coventry went into more depth what was only touched on in "If This--".

How do we define "Harm"? An age-old question that can easily lead to a slippery-slope of people being deathly afraid of offending lest they be instantly killed or worse.

Heinlein's solution to that? Financial Harm only--- does an action or speech create financial harm in the victim? Does the activity cause the victim to lose actual money and/or property as a direct result of said action? There was also a direct physical component as well: Does the activity cause direct physical harm to the unwilling victim? (I.e. a punch in the snoot-- direct physical harm. Permitted if the victim agreed to activity that could possibly lead to such things, i.e. boxing.)

All else, according to Heinlein is just Dross. Heinlein was a cynical old bird, and felt that mere speech could not be harmful; "suck it up, buttercup" might well have been something he could have said.

I think I agree to this idea... somewhat. As I was writing this, I was thinking of sneaky ways to get around the above, and get away with it. As indirect harm is much harder to establish and prove.

I will point out that unintended harm is not excused.

Neither was speech censored, in so much as it did not cause direct harm to another; thus, you could call someone all sorts of things-- so long as you did not call him a thief if he wasn't, in fact, an actual thief.

Of course-- if you had proof he was a thief? That's different, isn't it?

.....

So, using the above, admittedly kind of limited worldview, would causing someone to commit suicide, due to ugly words, be considered direct physical harm? That one is much harder to prove; but within the simplistic rules I had outlined above, I would think "yes"-- one could be charged with murder under the above rules, IF it could be proved the suicide was a result of specific words by specific person or persons.

How to prove that beyond reasonable doubt? The Standard to which criminal law is held?

I dunno; that has always bothered me since the first time I read Coventry