Pope Francis' Comments on Freedom of Religion

[Kythia]

I'm not sure if you've heard, but Pope Francis recently made comments in a press interview about Freedom of Religion, this links in to a conversation towards the end of this thread but I felt it was off topic enough to merit its own.  You can find the official transcription (in Italian) here  and below a spoilered Google Translate translation of the relevant bit.

English translation

(Sébastien Maillard)

Holy Father, yesterday morning during Mass spoke of religious freedom as a fundamental human right. But in respect of the different religions to what extent you can get in the freedom of expression, that even that is a basic human right? Thank You.

(Pope Francis)

Thank you for asking, it's smart. I think both are fundamental human rights: freedom of religion and freedom of expression. You can not ... think ... She's French, we go to Paris! We speak out. You can not hide a truth, that everyone has the right to practice their religion without offending, freely. So we do, we want to do all. Second, you can not offend, to war, to kill in the name of their religion, that is, in the name of God. For us what is happening now makes us a bit '... surprising. But always think of our history: how many religious wars we have had! You think of the "Saint Bartholomew" ... as you understand this? We have also been sinners on this. But you can not kill in the name of God. This is an aberration. Killing in the name of God is an aberration. I think this is the main thing on freedom of religion: it has to do with freedom, without offending, but without imposing and kill.

Freedom of expression. Everyone not only has the freedom, the right, also has an obligation to say what they think to help the common good. The obligation. Think of a deputy, a senator if he does not say what he thinks it is the true path, does not cooperate for the common good. And not only these, many others. We have an obligation to speak openly, to have this freedom, but without offending. Because it is true that you can not react violently, but if Dr. Gasbarri, great friend, I said a bad word against my mother, comes to him a punch! And 'normal! And 'normal. You can not lead, you can not insult the faith of others, you can not make fun of the faith. Pope Benedict in a speech - I do not remember where - had spoken of this mentality post-positivist, post-positivist metaphysics, which eventually led to believe that religions or religious expressions are a kind of subculture, which are tolerated, but are a few things, not part of the culture illuminated. And this is a legacy of the Enlightenment. So many people who slanders of religions, the teases, say "giocattolizza" the religion of the other, they cause, and can happen what happens if the dr. Gasbarri says something against my mom. There is a limit. Every religion has dignity, every religion that respects human life, the human person. And I can not make fun of her. And this is a limit. I took this as the limit, to say that the freedom of expression, there are limits as that of my mother. I do not know if I could answer the question. Thank You.

First, this is the Pope speaking in a press conference - this isn't (necessarily) the position of the Catholic Church, although obviously his opinions weigh heavily on the official ones.  The last official statement from the Church on the issue that I'm aware of was Dignitatis Humanae (On Human Dignity) from Vatican 2, and this doesn't seem to clash.

In brief, his view is that there are certain statements that are offensive enough to mean that a reaction is understandable - essentially, as I understand it, the "defect of reason" of insanity pleas.  He uses the example of someone criticising yo momma (you know, for being so fat and stupid) and then getting a punch.  He stops explicitly short of condoning murder, obviously, and is talking in general terms about whether there are/should be limits on the right to criticise religion, not in specific terms about any recent incidents.  He also, to my reading at least, stops short of saying that such criticism should be illegal, simply that it should be understood that it could provoke a response.  Dude's not a lawyer though and generally avoids nitty-gritty and, yanno, actual fucking details so I'm not attaching too much weight to that.

Thoughts?  Should we consider the effect our speech has on others in general terms?  In this specific one?  Is it possible to be so offensive that you deserve a punch?  Should it be allowed to be that offensive?  Should it be allowed to get that punch?  And so forth.

[Lustful Bride]

always the difficult question: How far does freedom of X extend?

I wish I had an answer and could word it better but in my opinion I think it should really be a case by case thing. not just a catch all "They all go until this line here" kind of thing......yeah I suck at being smarts.  :P

[Ironwolf85]

well wherever we draw the line, murder over art is unacceptable

[Hemingway]

It seems to me we ought to draw the line exactly where we draw the line when we're not dealing with religion: We're protected against death threats and defamation, but for basically anything else, the 'punishment' is that whoever made the statements seems like a dick. Which is their privilege. It's the right of everyone to be offended, and to be offensive.

If we do start drawing lines, we ought to do draw similar lines for religiously motivated speech. That is, you may no longer, on the basis of your religion, say offensive and baseless things about homosexuality, or birth control, or medical procedures, or anything else that is sensitive to many people. If the pope has not yet acknowledged this, I'd like to see him do that before I start taking his word for how I or others ought to treat the feelings of religious people. Because I am offended when I read what some people say about homosexuality, or abortion, or any range of topics. And while I don't often use my right to say offensive things about religion, I will reserve that right until there's no more reason for me to exercise it.

[Deamonbane]

Yeah, he's probably giving it a little time, easing it on his folk. If he springs all this stuff on them he's liable to slash the Catholic Church all over the world in half...

[TheGlyphstone]

Or suffer whatever the Catholic version of a coup is. They used to straight-up assassinate unpopular popes back in the days, I'm sure a sufficiently off-the-rocker pontiff could be internally 'persuaded' to 'retire' like Benedict XVI did, if the cost was genuine schism in the Church.

[Lrrr]

WRT religion, I'd probably defend anybody I felt was being persecuted - depending on the circumstances.  So yeah Lustful, I think a case-by-case consideration would dictate what I would do.

On other subjects, I really don't care what anybody says about me - as long as they stay away from a physical assault all they're going to get is the other cheek.  If they go after my kids or SO - totally different story.  Calling my daughter a fucking whore when she's with me WILL be followed by a sincere apology.

Why do I not feel bad about reacting that way?   I must be a bad person for feeling unbridled wrath even just sitting here and thinking about someone doing that to her.

[Oniya]

Why do I not feel bad about reacting that way?   I must be a bad person for feeling unbridled wrath even just sitting here and thinking about someone doing that to her.

Nah - just a parent.  Even outside of religious stuff, I'll put up with a lot more than I'd put up with if it were directed towards the little Oni.

[AndyZ]

Kythia, I don't know how much help I can be on this, but you were awesome to me in another thread and i want to try my best.



It seems to be a culture change.

When I was growing up, there was a little rhyme of, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

Compare to today:

https://richgirlconfessions.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/tumblr_lmjbe4oufg1qbm9ico1_500.jpg (Linked: image of child. - Staff)

So, which is better?

One thing I've noticed is that, when you can't criticize someone, constructive criticism gets really difficult.  I remember vividly learning in 6th grade how much my feelings got hurt when a teacher told me about all the problems that I had with a project I was working on.  Contrast that with a few years ago when I paid someone to look over my novel and tell me what needed fixing.

There's a lot of things that hurt feelings, but if we attempt to stop any feelings from being hurt, we do ourselves a disservice.

There's a TV stereotype where a woman asks a man if she looks fat in this dress.  Now, some people might know they look terrible and simply want to fish for a compliment, but others are actively deciding which dress they should wear to a particular party.

Should we promote a society where we try to make each other feel as good as possible, or a society where we value honesty above everything else?

For my money, criticism gives us a chance to grow.  We learn new things and we try our best to be better as a result.  Although something may be temporarily upsetting, we can learn from it.

Now, admittedly, this seems like a far cry from the concept of dipping a crucifix in urine and calling it art, or doing whatever happened in Charlie Hebdo that so many news organizations feel completely justified in blurring out while claiming they support free speech.

The problem is that it's such a fine line.

I am horrified as well as offended that someone might believe in both God and Satan and choose Satan.  Yet people do.

I consider it offensive that two people who don't love each other would get married just for the government benefits.  Yet people do, and it makes perfect sense for them to do so, especially if they don't consider marriage sacred in the way that I do.

For the latter, I really think we'd be much better off not having the government involved in marriage whatsoever.  It's really the only way to be fair and make everyone happy.

I believe it was Russia where they went by Freedom of Worship instead of Freedom of Religion, where you could privately worship whatever you wanted but couldn't show any signs of it or attempt to proselytize.  That would be pretty bad also.

Now, I will agree that some things are just being a jerk (and use whatever synonym for jerk you like.  I used to say dick but someone didn't like that one), but I don't think I want being a jerk to be a crime.  It's way too subjective, for one thing.

I also also agree that we should be consistent.  Either we should stop banning prayer in public schools or we should ban insulting religion and various other types of speech.  I never did like the idea that we try to draw a line and say, "Okay, we like this but we don't like this, and we the government know what's best for you."

As far as the idea that certain speech can get you physically assaulted, I think we should absolutely strive away from that.  While it may be an emotional response, we may be able to sympathize with people who respond in that way, but we should strive to be better than that.

[Sethala]

I also also agree that we should be consistent.  Either we should stop banning prayer in public schools or we should ban insulting religion and various other types of speech.  I never did like the idea that we try to draw a line and say, "Okay, we like this but we don't like this, and we the government know what's best for you."

I just want to pop in here and say that prayer isn't banned in public schools, only school-led prayer and worship is.  That is, a teacher can't start off the lesson by leading a prayer, but a student can certainly take the time to pray before starting on a test.  Granted, such things have to be non-disruptive; if your version of "prayer" is five minutes of yelling in tongues loud enough that no one can hear the teacher, then being told "you can't do that during class" is pretty reasonable.  I'm not sure just how on-topic this discussion would be though, so I wouldn't mind taking it to another thread if you'd like to continue it.

As for the thread itself, I think what you should be allowed to talk about depends on the medium.  If I were to go to a bar and start making fun of religion when standing next to a priest, he can't really get away from my comments without leaving the bar, so being told to shut up (or risk being thrown out myself) is reasonable.  If I were to instead publish such comments in a magazine however, it's easy enough for the priest to simply not read the magazine.  Now, this is where his free speech can come in; he can try to organize a boycott of said magazine as a way to tell the publisher "I don't want to buy your magazine any more if these comments are in it", and, if enough people agree, it's reasonable for the magazine to ask me to stop making such comments in it.

The only time I could see violence being acceptable is if the insulting person continues to be insulting after being asked to stop, there's no available authority that can force them to leave, and it's impractical for me to leave.  For instance, if someone were being incredibly insulting to me while standing at a bus stop, with no one else around.  I can't simply leave the bus stop as I need to get on the bus, there's no one nearby to tell him to leave because he won't shut up, and I've already asked him to stop saying such things.  Even then I would tell people to ignore them rather than use force, but some people may not have such restraint, especially if what the other person is saying is something incredibly personal.  However, the only violence I could think is acceptable is a punch to the face; murdering someone for comments like this is wholly unacceptable no matter what the circumstances.

[Oniya]

I just want to pop in here and say that prayer isn't banned in public schools, only school-led prayer and worship is.  That is, a teacher can't start off the lesson by leading a prayer, but a student can certainly take the time to pray before starting on a test. 

In fact, there's a common saying that as long as algebra is taught, there will be prayer in school.  ^_^

[AndyZ]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/11/colorado-springs-student-sues-high-school-banning-/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/02/michigan-football-prayer_n_3535414.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-student-banned-from-passing-out-flyers-promoting-prayer-session-at-middle-schools-flagpole-131924/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-banned-praying-loud-public-school-steps-article-1.1413244

Granted that it's not widespread, but some places have to deal with it.



Now, one of the ideas I've been playing with goes by "limits" instead of "rights."  We consider whether it's more of a burden between two people for X or Y.

I have no idea how well it actually works, but it's something I've been wanting to play with for a while.

It works easy enough in some cases.  Obviously the burden of not murdering people is less important than someone's not being murdered.  The old saying goes about how the right to swing your fist ends where someone's nose begins.

I would venture that the burden of hearing someone else's words is usually less onerous than the burden of hearing words which cause you pain, but I could understand someone's reason for the contrary.

To decide where words can be met with violence, we would need to create some form of correlation between physical and emotional trauma.  I don't even know where to begin there.

[Sethala]

Right, there's always going to be fringe cases where people step out of their bounds and ban something they shouldn't.  I didn't mean to say that no school ever bans religion, just that there's not a widespread ban on religion in schools.

I only skimmed the articles, but my responses:

For the first one, assuming the bible club wasn't doing anything that another club couldn't do, I see no reason to break them up.  If other clubs were able to use those rooms at those times, and there wasn't something wrong with the bible club (i.e. they weren't being disruptive, they followed any bylaws the school required, etc), they should be allowed.  Note that this assumes the school would be equally receptive about allowing other clubs; if someone wanted to start a quran club and could meet whatever requirements the school set for the bible club, they should be allowed to have it as well.

The second story however, I think it was right to stop the prayer sessions.  Unlike the bible club, the football team doesn't have a religious affiliation as part of its purpose, and people from any religion should be allowed to be part of it.  Because of that, having a religious action as part of that club means you're forcing that religion on everyone that wants to take part, regardless of their own affiliation.  If the team wanted to, say, have a prayer session before practice and make it clear that not everyone's required to show up (e.g. practice starts at 4, prayer is at 3:30 for those that want to join but you can show up at 4 instead), it wouldn't be an issue, but having it right after a game means that people who don't want to join are still almost forced to be a part of it.

The third and fourth stories are where we can have an interesting discussion however, because they both have the same problem: someone is promoting their religion in a public location that people are forced to go to (I'm assuming the mother's "loud prayers" are of the "you must convert" type, considering her location and that she wants to have everyone in the school pray, essentially).  As the fourth story says, a large part of the complaint was that the school should protect students from religious influences that their parents may not consent to.

[Caehlim]

I am horrified as well as offended that someone might believe in both God and Satan and choose Satan.  Yet people do.

Just to offer a minor correction. The Florida Church of Satan, who produced the colouring book you've linked the article about, do not actually believe in God and Satan. They are a branch of The Church of Satan which practises Laveyan Satanism. This confusingly named religion does not worship Satan, nor God but rather preaches the self as deity and excludes all outside divine or profane forces.

"Satanists do not believe in the supernatural, in neither God nor the Devil. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality behind Satan is simply the dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshiped, rather a reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. Thus any concept of sacrifice is rejected as a Christian aberration—in Satanism there's no deity to which one can sacrifice."
- Peter Gilmore, head of the Church of Satan.

[TheGlyphstone]

Indeed. It's more like Atheism wearing a funny hat - no offense intended to any self-titled atheists around.

[Kythia]

Indeed. It's more like Atheism wearing a funny hat - no offense intended to any self-titled atheists around.

But offense intended to funny hat wearers? 

I think there's been a good point made upthread about insults to your child.  Let's say, Oniya and Lrrr, that I say something simply horrifically insulting to your kid - do you think your violent reaction is something I should have predicted (your hypothetical violent reaction to my hypothetical insult, obvi) and something I need to accept as the "cost" of that insult?  Would I be justified in prosecuting for assault after I receive that violent reaction?  I'm not talking strictly legally, I'm talking about if you could design your own legal system.

[AndyZ]

I'm almost PROCed out and will likely take a break for a bit, but I wanted to ask:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/07/in-florida-tis-the-season-for-satan.html

Is this the same group or a different group, and if the same, why such a clear depiction of Paradise Lost?

Granted that I realize that Satan in the Bible is different from what Paradise Lost has with Lucifer.

Also, thanks for the correction.

[TheGlyphstone]

But offense intended to funny hat wearers? 

I think there's been a good point made upthread about insults to your child.  Let's say, Oniya and Lrrr, that I say something simply horrifically insulting to your kid - do you think your violent reaction is something I should have predicted (your hypothetical violent reaction to my hypothetical insult, obvi) and something I need to accept as the "cost" of that insult?  Would I be justified in prosecuting for assault after I receive that violent reaction?  I'm not talking strictly legally, I'm talking about if you could design your own legal system.

Funny hat wearers are jerks anyways.

[Caehlim]

I'm almost PROCed out and will likely take a break for a bit, but I wanted to ask:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/07/in-florida-tis-the-season-for-satan.html

Is this the same group or a different group, and if the same, why such a clear depiction of Paradise Lost?

Granted that I realize that Satan in the Bible is different from what Paradise Lost has with Lucifer.

Honestly I suspect it's because they're trolling people. I can't confirm that, I'm not a member of their group nor do I have any inside sources beyond public commentary. But it seems pretty clear that the intent there was a deliberate mockery of governments sponsoring religious displays so they tried to create something offensive to Christian sensibilities on purpose.

[Sethala]

Honestly I suspect it's because they're trolling people. I can't confirm that, I'm not a member of their group nor do I have any inside sources beyond public commentary. But it seems pretty clear that the intent there was a deliberate mockery of governments sponsoring religious displays so they tried to create something offensive to Christian sensibilities on purpose.

Yeah, that seems about right.  I don't agree with it, but I do kind of enjoy the schadenfreude of giving them a taste of their own medicine after having religious propaganda shoved at me for a good chunk of my childhood.

[Ironwolf85]

personally I hate trolls. I find trolling a waste of brainpower, and lord knows people need as much as they can spare.
guys I've met that follow that stuff are kinda... selfish jerks.

Seriously some folks try to make religious trolling an art, now imagine if they put that towards science or an actual understanding of a natural, cultural, or spiritual nature...

[Oniya]

But offense intended to funny hat wearers? 

I think there's been a good point made upthread about insults to your child.  Let's say, Oniya and Lrrr, that I say something simply horrifically insulting to your kid - do you think your violent reaction is something I should have predicted (your hypothetical violent reaction to my hypothetical insult, obvi) and something I need to accept as the "cost" of that insult?  Would I be justified in prosecuting for assault after I receive that violent reaction?  I'm not talking strictly legally, I'm talking about if you could design your own legal system.

I think that getting a 'violent reaction' from a parent after verbally assaulting their child is something to be expected.  It's a primal thing, as anyone whose late relative has ever messed with a bear cub can tell you about.  'Violent reactions' do not need to be exclusively physical, however.  I can't speak for Lrrr, but my own 'violent reaction' would be a returning verbal harangue that would shock sailors and change hair colors and textures for a good block around.  (I know my strengths, what can I say?) 

[Lrrr]

I think there's been a good point made upthread about insults to your child.  Let's say, Oniya and Lrrr, that I say something simply horrifically insulting to your kid - do you think your violent reaction is something I should have predicted (your hypothetical violent reaction to my hypothetical insult, obvi) and something I need to accept as the "cost" of that insult?  Would I be justified in prosecuting for assault after I receive that violent reaction?  I'm not talking strictly legally, I'm talking about if you could design your own legal system.

I think that getting a 'violent reaction' from a parent after verbally assaulting their child is something to be expected.  It's a primal thing, as anyone whose late relative has ever messed with a bear cub can tell you about.  'Violent reactions' do not need to be exclusively physical, however.  I can't speak for Lrrr, but my own 'violent reaction' would be a returning verbal harangue that would shock sailors and change hair colors and textures for a good block around.  (I know my strengths, what can I say?)

I'm exhausted from two days of no sleep and I'm hurting badly from lack of the proper medicine so maybe I shouldn't answer right now - but I'm going to anyway.

As with any social interaction, my response would depend on the circumstances.  If the verbal assault came from someone randomly mumbling and wandering from young woman to young woman screaming at them, I would probably let it go figuring they had mental problems I wasn't going to solve no matter how I responded.  In that case, I doubt the person would be able to properly anticipate the response to whatever she did to others.

If they are an adult of sound mind I would agree with Oniya - they should be able to anticipate a parent's reaction to an assault on their child.

WRT being prosecuted, I doubt a verbal reprimand on my part would lead to legal ramifications under any set of laws.  If I physically assaulted the name-caller I would expect to be prosecuted even if we were using my personal set of laws.  I'm perfectly capable of over-reacting to a situation like that and flattening someone with a swift right to the nose.  I'm also perfectly capable of recognizing my mistake when I return to a non-agitated state of mind.  In our current legal system I believe I'd be given a break due to what would be termed extenuating circumstances (parent protecting child).

[Hemingway]

personally I hate trolls. I find trolling a waste of brainpower, and lord knows people need as much as they can spare.
guys I've met that follow that stuff are kinda... selfish jerks.

Seriously some folks try to make religious trolling an art, now imagine if they put that towards science or an actual understanding of a natural, cultural, or spiritual nature...

Insults are not classy.

It's too easy to dismiss it as 'trolling'. It's designed to get a rise out of people, yes - but any reaction on the part of religious people is no different from what non-believers may have to seeing religious displays, billboards, religious literature handed out, and so on. If these groups - the religious groups - want the right to display their religion in public, then they must also respect the rights of others to do the same with other religions, even if those religions aren't considered 'serious'. How is this selfish at all?

[Kythia]

WRT being prosecuted, I doubt a verbal reprimand on my part would lead to legal ramifications under any set of laws.  If I physically assaulted the name-caller I would expect to be prosecuted even if we were using my personal set of laws.  I'm perfectly capable of over-reacting to a situation like that and flattening someone with a swift right to the nose.  I'm also perfectly capable of recognizing my mistake when I return to a non-agitated state of mind.  In our current legal system I believe I'd be given a break due to what would be termed extenuating circumstances (parent protecting child).

This is sorta kinda a little bit what I was getting at.  There are people who feel the same way about their faith as they do a child.  To me, what PF was saying was that hauling off and punching someone has extenuating circumstances.  That juries shouldn't convict and, by extension, that such reactions are (should be?  Its not clear from his comments) understandable and to a greater or lesser extent sanctioned by society. 

I dunno.  In all honesty I've never heard an overly good defence of free speech as an abstract principle and I think I'm considerably less...errrr... "bothered" by limitations on it than E as a whole.  Part of this may be a cross Atlantic thing, but it may not and I lack the energy to poll my fellow countrymen to find out how typical my attitude is.

The US - and I'm not a lawyer and even if I was I still wouldn't be one who knew the laws in the US - has "fighting words" which, according to wikipedia are:

"insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Is my insulting your daughter fighting words and hence shouldn't be protected?  In your own moral code, I mean, not the law?  If it is, is there a difference between that and an insult to the religion of someone who felt very strongly about it?

[Ironwolf85]

Insults are not classy.

It's too easy to dismiss it as 'trolling'. It's designed to get a rise out of people, yes - but any reaction on the part of religious people is no different from what non-believers may have to seeing religious displays, billboards, religious literature handed out, and so on. If these groups - the religious groups - want the right to display their religion in public, then they must also respect the rights of others to do the same with other religions, even if those religions aren't considered 'serious'. How is this selfish at all?

Oh I don't mean proclaiming your beliefs or lack thereof. But while spending $7,000 for a giant middle finger on a billboard and "Screw you (insert political group or faith here) you are all shit." is within your rights, I just don't approve of A: somthing that tries to start a flame war in the real world B: spending a ton of money on a giant "screw you" to others that could've gone somewhere better.

I don't want to take away people's freedom. I just think some people should be classier if ya know what I mean.

Basically people have a right to be offended and pissed, or to respond should hate speech be masquerading as humor. Which occasionally it does.

But my sympathy for such goes right out the window when that person raises their objection with a fucking machine gun instead of a protest outside the office or just sending a pissed off letter to the editor.

[Sethala]

Is my insulting your daughter fighting words and hence shouldn't be protected?  In your own moral code, I mean, not the law?  If it is, is there a difference between that and an insult to the religion of someone who felt very strongly about it?

Too tired to go into much detail about this, but a quick thought:  It seems there's a pretty big difference between walking up to one person and specifically insulting their child, and posting something in a public area that mocks a general group in a humorous way.  But, if someone did come up to me and start insulting my religion (assuming I had a religion I felt strongly about, at least), and was clear he was targeting me and not letting me ignore him, then I'd consider lashing out in some way to be a valid response.

[Tairis]

People need to get over their obsession with the 'harm' of words. Someone insulting your child or your religion doesn't create any physical harm. Get over it. And in the case of you're religion if you're worried about what people are saying about it... then I wonder just how sound your belief is.

[AndyZ]

Going to be slowing down my PROC posts because they were interfering with my games.

The US - and I'm not a lawyer and even if I was I still wouldn't be one who knew the laws in the US - has "fighting words" which, according to wikipedia are:

I never actually knew this was a real thing.  I just figured it was something people said in old movies.

Part of the issue I see here is that we get into the burden of proof issue.  If we consider something to be offensive and unacceptable when the person doesn't believe it, but reluctantly acceptable when the person does believe it, how do you prove that you believe it?  I am not able to prove my believe in God significantly better than a Pastafarian, and requiring any degree of proof is only going to cause a lot of people to flat out lie.

I would feel uncomfortable creating a demarcation in this spot for that reason.



As I think about this, though, I'm reminded of something from college.

Someone had told me a story in confidence, and I ended up accidentally blurting something which really hurt that person.  It's not worth getting into, but I immediately got shoved out of my chair and onto the floor.  He let it go immediately after that, as if instant justice had been reached.

I remember how ashamed I'd felt that I'd completely messed up like that, and couldn't even find the words to speak to him in order to apologize.

It might be something far more common to others, but I have a severe difficulty in imagining any sort of legal system addressing this particular social phenomenon.

[Kythia]

And in the case of you're religion if you're worried about what people are saying about it... then I wonder just how sound your belief is.

Could you expand on that?  I suspect I'm misunderstanding you.

Part of the issue I see here is that we get into the burden of proof issue.  If we consider something to be offensive and unacceptable when the person doesn't believe it, but reluctantly acceptable when the person does believe it, how do you prove that you believe it?  I am not able to prove my believe in God significantly better than a Pastafarian, and requiring any degree of proof is only going to cause a lot of people to flat out lie.

No, I think you're mistaken here.  I wouldn't fight to avenge an insult to <insert E member's name here>'s daughter, they would.  In one case it would be an insult, in another it wouldn't.  I don't think there's a meaningful difference on that particular front.

[Tairis]

Could you expand on that?  I suspect I'm misunderstanding you.

Simply that those religious people that believe they should be able to censor the speech of others because it is antagonistic to their religion clearly must be a little woozy on the definition of 'all powerful'. If you truly believe that god/allah/whatever is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing... then why does it matter what the atheist or whatever journalist down the street is publishing in their local newspaper?

Seems to me if you really believe in an omnipotent deity then you shouldn't be concerned about the opinions of others on your religion. If you god was really 'offended' it's not as if he or she doesn't have the ability to do something about it. If your belief is 100% unshakeable then why are you worried about what other people say?

[AndyZ]

Could you expand on that?  I suspect I'm misunderstanding you.

No, I think you're mistaken here.  I wouldn't fight to avenge an insult to <insert E member's name here>'s daughter, they would.  In one case it would be an insult, in another it wouldn't.  I don't think there's a meaningful difference on that particular front.

I'm sorry.  I was trying to expand it over to the religion idea that people mentioned before.

The idea I was playing with was, some people consider trolling to be different than just saying something that you believe.  Like, if you say that a kid is fat and he actually is overweight, then you might be trying to help.  If you're just saying it to mess with the kid's head and give them an eating disorder, it's far worse.

If you go by that kind of rule, though, then you need to be able to prove that what you said is what you believe, which becomes a really difficult burden to prove.

I've been upsetting a lot of people on PROC and probably won't continue to post here, but I wanted to apologize that I couldn't help you out more.

[Kythia]

Simply that those religious people that believe they should be able to censor the speech of others because it is antagonistic to their religion clearly must be a little woozy on the definition of 'all powerful'. If you truly believe that god/allah/whatever is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing... then why does it matter what the atheist or whatever journalist down the street is publishing in their local newspaper?

Seems to me if you really believe in an omnipotent deity then you shouldn't be concerned about the opinions of others on your religion. If you god was really 'offended' it's not as if he or she doesn't have the ability to do something about it. If your belief is 100% unshakeable then why are you worried about what other people say?

So... if a person's belief that their daughter isn't a fucking whore is 100% unshakeable they shouldn't be offended if people shout that at her in the street?  Is that your argument?  Because that sounds kinda dubious to me.  It seems you're conflating two very different things.  I don't see what the existence or otherwise of an omnipotent deity has to do with you offending me.  Whether or not said deity is also offended also doesn't seem relevant to whether or not I am.  Am I still misunderstanding you?

I'm sorry.  I was trying to expand it over to the religion idea that people mentioned before.

The idea I was playing with was, some people consider trolling to be different than just saying something that you believe.  Like, if you say that a kid is fat and he actually is overweight, then you might be trying to help.  If you're just saying it to mess with the kid's head and give them an eating disorder, it's far worse.

If you go by that kind of rule, though, then you need to be able to prove that what you said is what you believe, which becomes a really difficult burden to prove.

I've been upsetting a lot of people on PROC and probably won't continue to post here, but I wanted to apologize that I couldn't help you out more.

Intentions aren't magical fairy dust that you can sprinkle over things to change what you actually do.  If I say something offensive to you, its not magically less offensive because I didn't really mean it.

[Tairis]

So... if a person's belief that their daughter isn't a fucking whore is 100% unshakeable they shouldn't be offended if people shout that at her in the street?  Is that your argument?  Because that sounds kinda dubious to me.  It seems you're conflating two very different things.  I don't see what the existence or otherwise of an omnipotent deity has to do with you offending me.  Whether or not said deity is also offended also doesn't seem relevant to whether or not I am.  Am I still misunderstanding you?

No, that would go back to the first part of my post: they're words. Get over it.

If someone is acting in such a way as to become a public nuisance (following people, harassing them, yelling at them etc) they easily fall under said public nuisance laws. Otherwise... what's it matter? Everyone in this country, and most everywhere else, seems to have forgotten that you do not have an unalienable right to not be offended. You have the right to free speech and you have the right to BE offended. You do not have the right to restrict that speech BECAUSE you're offended.

[Kythia]

You have the right to free speech and you have the right to BE offended. You do not have the right to restrict that speech BECAUSE you're offended.

Well, I'm not sure where precisely you mean by "this country" - I'm in the UK, but I kind of sense you mean the US?  If you do then you're not quite on the money, I repeat the quote about fighting words with a bolded part:

"insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

In other words, and I stress I'm not a lawyer - this is a lay reading, offensive speech (if its nothing else) is not protected as free speech, and so you do have the right to restrict it.  But that's neither here nor there, I'm dubious of any argument that claims "inalienable rights" as it just gets kinda meaningless in my experience.  "You can't restrict it because it's inalienable" only works if I agree there is such a thing as inalienable rights, which I don't.  Further, definitions of inalienable rights tend to vary as to exactly what those inalienable rights actually are - see, for example, you vs. the US -  which seems to beg a number of questions.  In short, I think we might have to agree to disagree there, I don't accept the basic premises of your argument so it seems further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

Anyhoo.  Rather interesting article here  Reason one is rather stupid, and I expect more of Pinker to be honest, but the rest is interesting reading.  Haven't quite decided what I think of it yet.

[Oniya]

Last I checked, the first Amendment to the US Constitution states that Congress shall not pass any law to restrict blah-de-blah-de-so-forth.  At no point does it say that someone can say whatever they want without any consequences from it.

[Zakharra]

Well, I'm not sure where precisely you mean by "this country" - I'm in the UK, but I kind of sense you mean the US?  If you do then you're not quite on the money, I repeat the quote about fighting words with a bolded part:

In other words, and I stress I'm not a lawyer - this is a lay reading, offensive speech (if its nothing else) is not protected as free speech, and so you do have the right to restrict it.  But that's neither here nor there, I'm dubious of any argument that claims "inalienable rights" as it just gets kinda meaningless in my experience.  "You can't restrict it because it's inalienable" only works if I agree there is such a thing as inalienable rights, which I don't.  Further, definitions of inalienable rights tend to vary as to exactly what those inalienable rights actually are - see, for example, you vs. the US -  which seems to beg a number of questions.  In short, I think we might have to agree to disagree there, I don't accept the basic premises of your argument so it seems further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

Anyhoo.  Rather interesting article here  Reason one is rather stupid, and I expect more of Pinker to be honest, but the rest is interesting reading.  Haven't quite decided what I think of it yet.

He is correct though. ' You do not have the right to restrict that speech BECAUSE you're offended.' That doesn't rule out consequences for use of free speech/expression. That is said and/or written/done, is done. That someone might take offense reaction at what you say/do isn't reason enough to restrict your speech/expression or any speech/expression. Fighting words or not, it's still not a reason to restrict it.

[Kythia]

He is correct though. ' You do not have the right to restrict that speech BECAUSE you're offended.' That doesn't rule out consequences for use of free speech/expression. That is said and/or written/done, is done. That someone might take offense reaction at what you say/do isn't reason enough to restrict your speech/expression or any speech/expression. Fighting words or not, it's still not a reason to restrict it.

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.  Laws can be passed restricting someone's rights to say something that is solely offensive.  People who have the right to pass laws have the right to pass laws restricting people from saying things that serve no purpose other than offense.  Whether its them or someone else who is offended is immaterial.  There's nothing whatsoever preventing that.  Maybe you think there should be, sure, but there isn't. 

I'm not quite certain of the point you're making here.  It seems like you were saying the above paragraph isn't the case?  If so, you're mistaken (assuming I read the stuff about fighting words correctly - I repeat my caveat).  Or are you saying you think its wrong on a moral rather than a factual level?  I'm really sorry, I just don't quite follow.

EDIT:  Sorry, further confusion.  I think part of what's confusing me is you bring up the consequences of actions under a quote from me when it was Oniya who said that.  I'm not sure how you're tying those things in to the quote you give - I think thats the main source of my confusion.  When I wrote that quote - and even rereading it now - I didn't/don't see any relation to a consideration of the consequences of saying things.  It's purely about the right to restrict people from saying it.

tl;dr - Is it possible for you to rephrase/expand.

[AndyZ]

This may be a difference between the US and the UK.  In the US, we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which stops various laws from being passed.  Granted, Congress often ignores these things, but the courts kick in and reinforce them.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ if you want to glance through the Bill of Rights.  They're technically the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

[Kythia]

This may be a difference between the US and the UK.  In the US, we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which stops various laws from being passed.  Granted, Congress often ignores these things, but the courts kick in and reinforce them.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ if you want to glance through the Bill of Rights.  They're technically the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Was that aimed at me?  Because...yes.  Fighting words are a US doctrine that, as I've quoted twice now, the courts have specifically stated are not covered by the first amendment.

Apologies if that wasn't aimed at me, just seemed like a very odd thing to say.

[AndyZ]

It was meant to be.  I've already proven myself not very good at this and am attempting to provide context.

95 years ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. made the claim that particular things just weren't going to be covered, such as "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater," or in the court case to which he claimed it, to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

This was the same guy who had no issue with compulsory sterilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

While it may be the current ruling, a number of people think that the guy was a nutjob and that we ought to go back to the original meaning of freedom of speech.

Before that guy, the closest you had was the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which I've heard people talk about as the first time we had real problems with government overreach.  Our second President (John Adams) set that up (and used it to punish his enemies), and the third (Thomas Jefferson) let it expire (and pardoned the people who got hit with it), and the Supreme Court never ruled on it.



There's also an inherent difficulty between arguing morals and legality, and what is on the books versus what should be on the books.

We know full well that our legal system isn't perfect.  For example, the new health care law that people have talked about so much over the last few years actually violates the Constitution as a bill for raising revenue that originated in the Senate.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html



I'll also apologize for my assumption that you weren't as familiar with the US legal system as you are.  Other people from other countries have been surprised by the concept, and from my cursory reading, it seemed like that had you stumped.  Sorry.

[Zakharra]

 I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree then. I don't consider what you consider fighting words, to be fighting words. I might find them offensive, but I doubt I'd get into  a fight over them unless said person saying them was getting in my face about it or harassing me or my family (in which case their actions would fall under the harassment laws). There's also laws against slander and libel that can be applied if you dislike what someone is saying. What you might think of as fighting words, I probably wouldn't.

So who is the one that decides what's fighting words? Criticizing someone or something, like say a religion/religious aspect/persons, shouldn't be considered fighting words. Ever. Yet to some, criticizing a religion is 'fighting words' as you say. Should we restrict our speech because they find our words/expression offensive and are willing to commit violence to 'avenge' their honor? By the reasoning you're giving, Kythia, because someone else, even someone not an American citizen, is offended, violently so at something we say or do, we shouldn't be saying or doing it. I apologize if that's not what you're saying, but that is the impression I am getting from you: 'if it is fighting words, you can't say/do it.'

[Kythia]

AndyZ

OK, thanks.

Fighting words aren't from Holmes, they're later than that.  Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire in 1942.  I mean, sure, maybe they were inspired by Holmes' decisions but the actual quote I give was from Frank Murphy

I'm interested in thie "back to the original meaning" though.  Could you go in to more depth on the original meaning?

Zakharra

By the reasoning you're giving, Kythia, because someone else, even someone not an American citizen, is offended, violently so at something we say or do, we shouldn't be saying or doing it. I apologize if that's not what you're saying, but that is the impression I am getting from you: 'if it is fighting words, you can't say/do it.'

Well, I'm noodling around similar issues yes.  But the reason I pulled that quote up is to clear up something I obviously phrased badly.

Fighting words are not covered by the first amendment, specifically and explicitly.  That doesn't mean don't do it.  There's no amendment giving you the explicit right to eat sandwiches, but thats not to say sandwiches are forbidden.  Simply that they're not expressly allowed.  I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying Tairis' argument that you have a right to say offensive things and noone has a right to stop you is incorrect.

I'm not sure I would consider them fighting words, if I would I'm not sure they should be.  All I'm saying is that Tairis' assumption that speech intended to offend or insult is protected is incorrect in the US (and the UK and, I suspect, most countries in the world)

[consortium11]

Here's a thing about free speech...

Everyone likes to say they're in favour of free speech. After all, no-one has likely ever won over a crowd by saying "I'm against free speech."

But virtually no-one is actually in favour of free speech.

What does free speech mean? Actual, real, truly free speech, not "well, I'll call it free speech but what I mean is somewhat regulated speech"? It means one cannot be punished by the state for what one says (using "says" in a general sense to convey all forms of expression, not merely the physical act of speaking).

It means many (and possibly all) types of fraud cannot be punished (by the state, which should be read into ever expression of "punished" in this paragraph). It means distributing or obtaining child porn cannot be punished (although one could likely still punish the maker). It means distributing classified information cannot be punished. It means the sort of treason that Robert Hanssen or Aldrich Ames indulged in cannot be punished. It means that most forms of stalking cannot be punished. It means that death threats cannot be punished. It means that copyright violations cannot be punished. It means that most forms of public order and public nuisance offences cannot be punished (not that they'd count as offences to begin with). And that's just an obvious few.

I suspect there are very few, if any, people who think those offences shouldn't be punished. But they are all simply people expressing themselves. They are all acts of speech. Robert Hanssen simply told the Russians things. Someone who collects pictures and videos of child porn from the creator and then distributes them to a third party is simply expressing themselves. Someone who sends a death threat is simply speaking. Someone who constantly phones someone else and breaths down the phone at them is expressing themselves. Someone who deliberately lies to you about some financial transaction for their own profit and your loss is simply committing an act of expression.

Once you accept that it's right for the state to restrict and punish these acts of expression then you're no longer arguing about whether speech should be free or not. You're arguing about how much restriction is allowed. And that's a different question. You've already decided some things are more important than free speach... now the only question is what falls into that category.

The general concept in such cases is "harm", largely aping John Stuart Mill's harm principle ("The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."). But "harm" is a nebulous and poorly defined word that means basically whatever one wants it to. Do we restrict it to physical harm? What about fraud then? And with our greater understanding of human psychology and the brain in general can we not say that physical harm is caused even when the victim is not physically attacked? The UK law accepts this in part; causing a person to suffer a recognised psychiatric condition can constitute actual bodily harm. We know that stress can have negative physical consequences... doesn't that constitute harm?

So what does actually constitute "harm" and where do we draw the line when it comes to speech?

Now, in this case we're not strictly speaking about governments and the law, we're talking about people in general and morality more than simply the law itself. If someone continuously insults and mocks me or someone I care about in a deeply personal and hateful way, is there a point when it becomes "right" (or at leak "ok") for me to respond by punching them? And let's remember, punching them won't stop them simply coming the next day to do it again unless I've made them terrified of me and terrified of the consequences. What happens if they take their punch, come back the next day and do it again. Then again. Then again. Then again. Then again. Is there a point where it becomes morally right (or at least "ok") for me to do more than simply punch them? To do something more serious.

As people who have followed me across PROC may note I'm pretty far to the "keep as much speech free as possible" side of things. But let's for a moment see if we can put together an at least somewhat coherent argument as to why there may be a moral case for one of the most horrific assaults on what we consider free speech in recent years, the vile Charlie Hebdo murders (which the Pope was obviously referencing).

Many people here have noted that if someone was to insult someone's child, that second person may be (morally) justified in punching them. As Kythia has noted, religion is in incredibly important and personal part of some people's lives... in some cases more important to them then their children (look at all the stories of families that have fallen apart after a child rejects their parents religion). An insult to the religion they hold so deeply and personally is at least as an insult to their child. And even as someone who has no issue with the sort of cartoons Charlie Hebdo published I can fully accept they were insulting; frequently I suspect that was the main point. Now, one can certainly argue that there is a difference between a punch and a massacre with automatic weapons... and you'd be right. But then one is no longer saying that the attack on the Charlie Hebdo staff was wrong in principle, you're saying that they took it so far. That if the perpetrators had gone to the office and beaten up the staff (or at least punched them) then that would have been morally OK.

I assume we all see the issue?

Law frequently uses a "reasonable man" test; what would a reasonable man have thought/done in the circumstances? Self-defence in the UK seems an appropriate example as it includes circumstances where one hasn't yet been attacked (but one reasonably thinks it will follow). In essence there is a too part test as to whether self-defence is allowed. First, was the use of force necessary in the circumstances and secondly, was the force used reasonable in the circumstances? Both of these tests have a subjective element (as they are based on what the person knew/felt at the time) but also an objective one (would a reasonable man have thought force necessary and would a reasonable man have thought that was the right amount of force to use). For example, if a large, scary looking man had no intention to attack me but had spent the last 10 minutes telling me how he was going to "give me a slap", then aggressively came towards me (albeit with the intention to "just" intimidate me) and I punched him in the nose then I'd probably have satisfied both parts. If I shot him in the head? I may well struggle to fulfill the second. If a guy brushed past me, mentioned that I was starting to piss him off and I punched him? I'd likely struggle with the first.

Shall we take that away from law and return it to morals and insulting talk? Because I think a good case can be made that the same logic should apply. Would a reasonable person think that force was justified as a result on the insult? And was the degree of force used reasonable? As above, people in this thread have noted that it may be reasonable to return insults with force if someone insults your child. Would the same apply to a religion you care about just as (if not more) deeply? And what degree of force is a reasonable response? I rather suspect that none would say cold-blooded execution... but, again, once we get to that point we're arguing degrees.

But let us look at this from another angle.

People can, and do, get offended... and very offended... by pretty innocuous things (for the purposes of this let us assume that they are acting in good faith when they say they are offended rather than putting on an act for attention/money). Recently there was an example of someone making a joke about otherkin (specifically people who believe they're really toasters) and people were offended on the basis that they saw it as an attack on trans-people (or at the very least aping previous attacks on trans-people). TERF's get insulted by the very idea of trans-women being considered anything other than "men in skirts". We've seen people consider beards offensive, sitting with your legs open offensive, wearing a first-nations style headdress offensive... hell, I've already mentioned otherkin, so I may as well point out that some otherkin get deeply offended if anyone doesn't take their view that they're actually a dragon seriously or uses the wrong pronoun to refer to them. Some people get offended at anything that doesn't present the USA as the best, some people get offended at something that does the same for Russia etc etc.

What chilling effect on speech would there be if the fact that someone, somewhere took offense... even deep offense... was enough to make people stop speaking? How many of the great works... be they film, television, writing, song, poem, play etc etc... would have never been produced if the creator was in fear of offending others? How stifled and awkward would every day conversation and life be if we had to stop saying anything that could cause offence... even deep offence.

That isn't a price I'm willing to pay.

To return to the where this discussion began, I do not think someone is morally justified in punching someone who insulted their daughter. I can understand why they did it and the provocation means I will clearly look upon it as more justifiable then if they had punched them for no reason but simply because something is more justifiable that does not make it justified.

[AndyZ]

This will probably help: http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

I'm only just waking up so I haven't read through it in detail, but everything looks accurate at a glance.

It may help to give some detail by showing how Adams and Jefferson's campaign went: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/

Now, back in the day, people certainly did duel over stuff.  Dueling went out of favor in America after a famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.  The story I've heard goes that Alexander Hamilton told a priest that he was just going to fire up into the air and leave himself therefore unarmed.  He did, and Burr shot him and mortally wounded him.  After that, public opinion apparently decided that it was better to beat the crap out of each other than shoot each other.

Whenever I've heard the words "fighting words," I'm used to hearing it as the old-timey way of people saying, "I'm willing to fight you if you don't take that back."  The stuff you mentioned, though, sounds more like what is now called "hate speech."

In the US, from my understanding of the law, defamation is a civil and not a criminal case.  If I start up a blog talking about how X person did something that they didn't do, they can sue me, but I can't be put in jail for slander.

Compare to France: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/france-arrests-dozens-hate-speech-charlie-hebdo-returns-first-issue-since-attack/

I need to be off but I hope that gives some better detail.

[Kythia]

Whenever I've heard the words "fighting words," I'm used to hearing it as the old-timey way of people saying, "I'm willing to fight you if you don't take that back."

Well, you learn something new every day.  I guess this was yours for today.

The stuff you mentioned, though, sounds more like what is now called "hate speech."

No, the stuff I'm talking about is what is now called "fighting words" (that's why I've been calling it "fighting words").  Hate speech, or incitement, is something different.  Had I meant that, I would likely have used words like "hate speech" or possibly "incitement".

Here's a thing about free speech...

Everyone likes to say they're in favour of free speech. After all, no-one has likely ever won over a crowd by saying "I'm against free speech."

But virtually no-one is actually in favour of free speech.

What does free speech mean? Actual, real, truly free speech, not "well, I'll call it free speech but what I mean is somewhat regulated speech"? It means one cannot be punished by the state for what one says (using "says" in a general sense to convey all forms of expression, not merely the physical act of speaking).

It means many (and possibly all) types of fraud cannot be punished (by the state, which should be read into ever expression of "punished" in this paragraph). It means distributing or obtaining child porn cannot be punished (although one could likely still punish the maker). It means distributing classified information cannot be punished. It means the sort of treason that Robert Hanssen or Aldrich Ames indulged in cannot be punished. It means that most forms of stalking cannot be punished. It means that death threats cannot be punished. It means that copyright violations cannot be punished. It means that most forms of public order and public nuisance offences cannot be punished (not that they'd count as offences to begin with). And that's just an obvious few.

I suspect there are very few, if any, people who think those offences shouldn't be punished. But they are all simply people expressing themselves. They are all acts of speech. Robert Hanssen simply told the Russians things. Someone who collects pictures and videos of child porn from the creator and then distributes them to a third party is simply expressing themselves. Someone who sends a death threat is simply speaking. Someone who constantly phones someone else and breaths down the phone at them is expressing themselves. Someone who deliberately lies to you about some financial transaction for their own profit and your loss is simply committing an act of expression.

Once you accept that it's right for the state to restrict and punish these acts of expression then you're no longer arguing about whether speech should be free or not. You're arguing about how much restriction is allowed. And that's a different question. You've already decided some things are more important than free speach... now the only question is what falls into that category.

Indeed, and I've always - to veer off topic for a bit - suspected this is one of the reasons I've never heard a good defence of it, most attempts are kinda stupid.  It's because people act as though, and possible believe, they are defending some abstract philosophical principle but what they are actually trying to defend is a considerably more mundane series of compromises with reality.  Admitting that means they don't support the philosophical ideal, though, and so consciously or no they try to defend a position they don't hold using language inappropriate to the situation.

Many people here have noted that if someone was to insult someone's child, that second person may be (morally) justified in punching them. As Kythia has noted, religion is in incredibly important and personal part of some people's lives... in some cases more important to them then their children (look at all the stories of families that have fallen apart after a child rejects their parents religion). An insult to the religion they hold so deeply and personally is at least as an insult to their child. And even as someone who has no issue with the sort of cartoons Charlie Hebdo published I can fully accept they were insulting; frequently I suspect that was the main point. Now, one can certainly argue that there is a difference between a punch and a massacre with automatic weapons... and you'd be right. But then one is no longer saying that the attack on the Charlie Hebdo staff was wrong in principle, you're saying that they took it so far. That if the perpetrators had gone to the office and beaten up the staff (or at least punched them) then that would have been morally OK.

I assume we all see the issue?

Actually no.  I promise I'm not just being deliberately obstructionist here.  I've not yet fully decided where I stand on this but I am increasingly leaning towards the "overreaction" viewpoint not the "wrong in principle" viewpoint.

I think I disagree with the intent behind "because something is more justifiable doesn't make it justified".  Sticking a "necessarily" in in there to clarify (what I see as your) point.  So yeah, I agree the Pope was clearly referring to the Charlie Hebdo thing, even if he clearly intended his comments to address a wider issue.  But yeah, Charlie Hebdo.  I'm an offended Muslim, I have a range of options.  Terrorist attack on one end, sucking it up on the other.  Various stuff in the middle.  And as "atrocity-ness" increases in one direction, so "justifiability" increases in the other.  I presume we can agree on that.

You mention that there's a "chilling effect" on speech - defined broadly - if we're to take the offence caused by our words in to effect.  But, well, we do.  It's part and parcel of not being a fucking dickhead.  We phrase things so as not to offend others around us.  E has a civility rule.  When we're talking with our friends, we might gloss over politics and stick to football because we know we'll disagree.  Hundreds of tiny concessions to insult and offence we give every day just because we're a social species.  Your argument seems to expand to call that a "chilling effect" which is nothing short of alarmist.  Saying "yeah, he seems nice" on meeting a new boyfriend who doesn't isn't being censored, its being able to hold conversations with actual human beings.  We accept that there is an onus on us to do that if we want to have friends.

Even when we make jokes about issues that we know are important to the other, we choose how and when to do it.  My boyfriend's family are Palace fans, and I know you're a Southampton one.  Say.

We weigh those things up.  Aware that trivial needling like the above has one level of proportionate response on our "atrocity vs justifiable" axes, aware that stepping it up a notch and saying people whose names rhyme with "bonsortium beleven" smell (or whatever - its surprisingly difficult to think of examples of offensive things I could say to you that aren't actually offensive things I'm saying to you) is worse, and less justified.  And so on.

I think once we accept any level of "self-censorship" for the sake of living in civilised society - which I'm sure we do - criticism of the reaction necessarily becomes one of degree not of kind.

[AndyZ]

"insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

The two seem very similar to me, but I admit that I may be drawing another comparison where others don't see one.

[Kythia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#Incitement_vs._fighting_words

[AndyZ]

So incitement isn't about offending but more about actually threatening someone, whereas fighting words and hate speech are more to offend?

[Tairis]

I'd also point out that you continue to use 'Fighting words' as a basis of your argument. The problem is the federal ruling you're using as a basis was set in 1942 and every notable case where it was brought to the Supreme Court it was not upheld.

You (this is more a plural you address Consortium and Kythia) also seem to be confusing free speech with 'I cannot be held accountable for anything I say'. That is not what freedom of speech is, freedom of speech is simply a right, and to me it is an unalienable one, that every human being has the right to express themselves without fear of persecution.

Stealing classified documents is... theft. Has nothing to do with free speech.

Fraud is... yep, fraud. Money changes hands, this is not one person talking and someone just handing them money cause they talk so good (those we call actors. And lawyers).

Stalking (as in the actual crime) involves physically following a person. Again, not speech. You're actually physically following someone around in an aggressive manner as you can't be charged with stalking if, for example, you live on the same bus route as a woman and eat at the same sandwich shop at lunch every day while working across the street. Technically you have followed that woman pretty much all day for days at at time, but it's not stalking.

Death threats and child porn are two of the only true 'gray areas', and really only death threats to be honest. Child porn isn't merely an image or a speech or a statement or even a song. It actually uses the physical body of someone else to commit a crime and documents it. Which is no more 'free speech' than murdering someone on camera and calling it 'free speech' is, because free speech is an individual right. You can't 'free speech' for someone (IE a victim) just like you can't '2nd amendment' someone else and force them to carry a rifle for you or '5th amendment' someone and force them not to say something to incriminate themselves.

[consortium11]

I'll have a replier up for you later Kythia (likely tomorrow).

I'd also point out that you continue to use 'Fighting words' as a basis of your argument. The problem is the federal ruling you're using as a basis was set in 1942 and every notable case where it was brought to the Supreme Court it was not upheld.

In every Supreme Court case since where fighting words has been brought up they have upheld it. They may well have narrowed the previous scope or struck down specific applications of it but the doctrine itself has been jurisprudentially uncontroversial.

You (this is more a plural you address Consortium and Kythia) also seem to be confusing free speech with 'I cannot be held accountable for anything I say'. That is not what freedom of speech is, freedom of speech is simply a right, and to me it is an unalienable one, that every human being has the right to express themselves without fear of persecution.

I defined it as "one cannot be punished by the state for what one says (using "says" in a general sense to convey all forms of expression, not merely the physical act of speaking)" earlier in the thread which strikes me as functionally identical to the definition you use.

Stealing classified documents is... theft. Has nothing to do with free speech.

Yes, if someone removed the physical documents then they could be prosecuted for the theft of however many sheets of paper they were on. But if they took photos of them? If they photocopied them? If they copied them by hand? If they emailed them? If they learned them by heart and recited them to their contact? All of those are examples of expressing oneself and as such under genuine, 100% free speech the state could not punish someone for doing so.

Fraud is... yep, fraud. Money changes hands, this is not one person talking and someone just handing them money cause they talk so good (those we call actors. And lawyers).

Fraud is generally defined as obtaining a pecuniary (normally cash itself but it could be something else) advantage by means of deliberate deception. The fact that there was deception is the key part of the crime. And how do we deceive others? By expressing ourselves. If I tell someone that I'm a Nigerian Prince and that I have $100,000,000 that I need transferring out of the country but that I need their help to do so then I have expressed myself. If the government punishes me for doing so they are infringing on my free speech. If I create a fake prospectus for a company which paints it in a brilliant light to encourage people to invest then I am expressing myself. If I deliberately tell lies to inflate the price of some shares I own before dumping them then I am expressing myself.

Stalking (as in the actual crime) involves physically following a person. Again, not speech.

What version of freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to travel? Why is physically walking somewhere not counted as expressing myself?

You're actually physically following someone around in an aggressive manner as you can't be charged with stalking if, for example, you live on the same bus route as a woman and eat at the same sandwich shop at lunch every day while working across the street. Technically you have followed that woman pretty much all day for days at at time, but it's not stalking.

But even if I am following someone deliberately (and aggressively) why isn't that expressing myself? Isn't the government saying where I can go and what I can do while going there (and once I get there) a clear example of them restricting how I express myself?

And aren't phonecalls, emails and letters through the post all simply me expressing myself?

Death threats and child porn are two of the only true 'gray areas', and really only death threats to be honest. Child porn isn't merely an image or a speech or a statement or even a song. It actually uses the physical body of someone else to commit a crime and documents it. Which is no more 'free speech' than murdering someone on camera and calling it 'free speech' is, because free speech is an individual right. You can't 'free speech' for someone (IE a victim) just like you can't '2nd amendment' someone else and force them to carry a rifle for you or '5th amendment' someone and force them not to say something to incriminate themselves.

As I said, the original creator would still be liable for abusing a child. But taking photos/video? That's expressing themselves. Receiving photos/video? Expressing oneself. Distributing those images to more people? Expressing oneself.

Let's be clear here... is speaking expressing oneself? If it is then anything one says cannot be restricted or punished by the state under genuine free speech. Is writing expressing oneself? If it is then anything one writes cannot be restricted or punished by the state under genuine free speech. Is moving your body expressing oneself? If then it cannot be restricted or punished by the state... and thus going somewhere or following someone cannot... under genuine free speech (with an obvious caveat about physically touching someone else). Is creating media like video or photos expressing oneself? If it is then it cannot be restricted or punished by the state under genuine free speech.

[Tairis]

In every Supreme Court case since where fighting words has been brought up they have upheld it. They may well have narrowed the previous scope or struck down specific applications of it but the doctrine itself has been jurisprudentially uncontroversial.

Except in all of those cases the 'Fighting Words' laws have been deemed non-applicable. Those court cases were not brought to the supreme court to strike down the 1942 ruling on 'Fighting Words', they were brought based upon each case and government bodies attempting to use the Fighting Words ruling to suppress free speech. They didn't uphold the 1942 ruling, they have steadily whittled away at it over the years until its scope has become more and more narrow. They would not invalid it completely unless a case was brought up directly against the ruling itself.

IE someone pushed a case that the ruling itself was unconstitutional. These sorts of laws and rulings are the reason we have unenforced, archaic laws that linger for decades like those in various southern states that prohibit everything from tying alligators to fire hydrants to having sex in anything other than the missionary position with spouse being technically illegal in Georgia. Said law exists on the books, but generally only because no one has brought a case to have it struck down. It's simply not worth the cost to 99% of the population.

Yes, if someone removed the physical documents then they could be prosecuted for the theft of however many sheets of paper they were on. But if they took photos of them? If they photocopied them? If they copied them by hand? If they emailed them? If they learned them by heart and recited them to their contact? All of those are examples of expressing oneself and as such under genuine, 100% free speech the state could not punish someone for doing so.

This isn't a free speech issue, this is an intellectual property argument which is an entire other massive and thorny issue that we haven't even come close to solving in the digital age. If you acknowledge that individuals can own 'ideas' or the like then this again isn't expression, it's theft.

Fraud is generally defined as obtaining a pecuniary (normally cash itself but it could be something else) advantage by means of deliberate deception. The fact that there was deception is the key part of the crime. And how do we deceive others? By expressing ourselves. If I tell someone that I'm a Nigerian Prince and that I have $100,000,000 that I need transferring out of the country but that I need their help to do so then I have expressed myself. If the government punishes me for doing so they are infringing on my free speech. If I create a fake prospectus for a company which paints it in a brilliant light to encourage people to invest then I am expressing myself. If I deliberately tell lies to inflate the price of some shares I own before dumping them then I am expressing myself.

Except if money never changes hands, no crime is actually committed. The act of speech isn't the crime, the act of the financial gain related to your speech is the crime.

What version of freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to travel? Why is physically walking somewhere not counted as expressing myself?

Freedom of travel actually doesn't fall under free speech. It's also oddly not one of the rights that are actually in the Bill of Rights. Again this is US centric, but it is still illegal for a US citizen to visit Cuba for example except under some exceptions.

But even if I am following someone deliberately (and aggressively) why isn't that expressing myself? Isn't the government saying where I can go and what I can do while going there (and once I get there) a clear example of them restricting how I express myself?

And aren't phonecalls, emails and letters through the post all simply me expressing myself?

As I said, the original creator would still be liable for abusing a child. But taking photos/video? That's expressing themselves. Receiving photos/video? Expressing oneself. Distributing those images to more people? Expressing oneself.

There is some clear dissonance here. 'Expressing yourself' is not a catch phrase for 'do whatever you want'. Also as mentioned above, physical travel is oddly absent from the bill of rights for example. In addition there also has to be some understanding that individual rights can only be applied to that individual. YOU have the right to express yourself. That does not give YOU the right to harm or restrict the rights of ANOTHER. (In this case an abused child or someone being stalked).

Let's be clear here... is speaking expressing oneself? If it is then anything one says cannot be restricted or punished by the state under genuine free speech. Is writing expressing oneself? If it is then anything one writes cannot be restricted or punished by the state under genuine free speech. Is moving your body expressing oneself? If then it cannot be restricted or punished by the state... and thus going somewhere or following someone cannot... under genuine free speech (with an obvious caveat about physically touching someone else). Is creating media like video or photos expressing oneself? If it is then it cannot be restricted or punished by the state under genuine free speech.

As I said before, death threats are the only real grey area but they can also easily fall under personal property and use of public service laws and avoid the free speech issue entirely. You are completely within your rights to say you want to stab John Doe with an icepick in his eye. It's your right to write it down, post it, make a fucking song about it. But if you're sending a letter to John Doe's house about it?

Well either a) you sent it through the postal service, which is illegal or b) you physically went to their house and left a note or something

In situation a) it has nothing to do with free speech, you are using a provided and optional service and they have the right to restrict that. In situation b) you are trespassing on private property and leaving threats.

The only area that we truly lack in, and sadly will continue to for some years I suspect, is the digital realm. While you can file a restraining order against someone stalking you or sending you letters, the internet has made it very hard to get away from threats, slander, etc. That's our real grey area that eventually we will have to define where one's personal 'space' in cyberspace begins and ends.

Either way waving a flag of 'You don't REALLY want free speech' has nothing to do with the fact that the essential point of this thread is that some people believe they have the right to suppress the speech of another because their personal beliefs are offended. And you are right, we do not have truly completely free speech in the US or anywhere else in the world that I know of.

But it doesn't mean I'm going to sit by and agree that we should legislate that things like Charlie Hebo's cartoons and writings should be made illegal because they are 'provocative' towards religion or anything else.

[Zakharra]

 Very well put Tairis. Very well put

[consortium11]

Except in all of those cases the 'Fighting Words' laws have been deemed non-applicable. Those court cases were not brought to the supreme court to strike down the 1942 ruling on 'Fighting Words', they were brought based upon each case and government bodies attempting to use the Fighting Words ruling to suppress free speech. They didn't uphold the 1942 ruling, they have steadily whittled away at it over the years until its scope has become more and more narrow. They would not invalid it completely unless a case was brought up directly against the ruling itself.

If they didn't uphold the ruling they'd have overturned it. They didn't. Each and every time "Fighting Words" has come up before the Supreme Court the Court has reaffirmed that "Fighting Words" exist and are not a protected category of speech. They may refine how it's used and in some circumstances restrict the scope but that in no way weakens or damages the underlying doctrine.

IE someone pushed a case that the ruling itself was unconstitutional. These sorts of laws and rulings are the reason we have unenforced, archaic laws that linger for decades like those in various southern states that prohibit everything from tying alligators to fire hydrants to having sex in anything other than the missionary position with spouse being technically illegal in Georgia. Said law exists on the books, but generally only because no one has brought a case to have it struck down. It's simply not worth the cost to 99% of the population.

1) The "tying alligators to fire hydrants" law doesn't exist. It's an ordnance rather than a law to begin with, it doesn't mention alligators (or any other specific animal), it's simply about keeping fire hydrants unobstructed and it was repealed and replaced.

2) I can find precisely no references to it being illegal to have sex in a position other than missionary in Georgia. There's mention of that being the case in Washington DC but if one tries to verify it rather than simply believe it because it's on the internet one discovers that it's a misreading of a sodomy law in Washington DC that was repealed in 1976. So no, it's not on the books either.

3) If the US Supreme Court wants to overturn a doctrine related to a case they have they will. In Citizens United they overruled Austin even though neither party argued to overturn it... the Supreme Court actually went back to the parties and told them that they needed to argue the point as the Supreme Court wanted to decide on it (the original scope of Citizens United was much narrower). In every case where "Fighting Words" has been raised the Court could decide to overturn it. They haven't... instead they've reinforced that it exists.

This isn't a free speech issue, this is an intellectual property argument which is an entire other massive and thorny issue that we haven't even come close to solving in the digital age. If you acknowledge that individuals can own 'ideas' or the like then this again isn't expression, it's theft.

No, it's a free speech issue (if we want actual, genuine 100% free speech). Ames and Hanssen (the two people I mentioned in this context) weren't prosecuted for intellectual property crimes, they were prosecuted for espionage. Their methods generally involved writing or directly talking to the Soviets. Hence, expression, hence a restriction on freedom of speech.

If you want to extend the discussion to IP laws and how they'd also almost all disappear if we had genuine, 100% free speech that's fine. But if we have genuine, 100% freedom of expression then how can I be prosecuted for what I express... even if that expression is revealing secrets to the Soviets?

Except if money never changes hands, no crime is actually committed.

1) Money doesn't need to change hands for their to be a fraud; pecuniary advantage is enough.

2) If there's no deception there's no crime.

The act of speech isn't the crime, the act of the financial gain related to your speech is the crime.

But my expression is still being restricted. Lying is still expressing oneself. If I lie and as a result gain a pecuniary advantage I have still expressed myself. If the state then prosecutes me for that I am still having my speech punished. Again, how is preventing me from saying that my company is about to make a $100,000,000 profit when it's actually made a $100,000,000 loss not restricting what I can say?

Freedom of travel actually doesn't fall under free speech. It's also oddly not one of the rights that are actually in the Bill of Rights. Again this is US centric, but it is still illegal for a US citizen to visit Cuba for example except under some exceptions.

1) Technically it's not illegal to visit Cuba; the restrictions apply to trading or providing money to them.

2) Freedom of travel is certainly a freedom of expression/speech issue when one debates the theory and not the current legal framework. Otherwise a law requiring everyone to stay in the exact spot they currently occupy would have no freedom of expression/speech implications. Clearly it does.

There is some clear dissonance here. 'Expressing yourself' is not a catch phrase for 'do whatever you want'. Also as mentioned above, physical travel is oddly absent from the bill of rights for example. In addition there also has to be some understanding that individual rights can only be applied to that individual. YOU have the right to express yourself.

And that right is being restricted...

That does not give YOU the right to harm or restrict the rights of ANOTHER. (In this case an abused child or someone being stalked).

1) In the child abuse examples I gave the person in question isn't directly harming the child. They're simply looking at/distributing pictures/video of them.

2) Remember, we're talking about actual, genuine 100% freedom of speech. Complete freedom of speech. Freedom to speak without restriction. In such a situation the fact that I'm expressing myself trumps everything else. If anything else is more important then you're not talking about free speech, you're talking about some form of regulated and restricted speech. It may be incredibly lightly restricted speech but it is still not free. That's the point. Free speech, much like meritocracy, is a nice sounding concept that virtually everyone wants to support... but when actually looked at it becomes pretty damn dystopian.

As I said before, death threats are the only real grey area but they can also easily fall under personal property and use of public service laws and avoid the free speech issue entirely.

Again, they can't avoid the free speech issue. If there is a restriction on what I say or how I express myself then there is a free speech issue and in a 100%, genuine free speech situation any restriction of it would have to be removed. Trying to lawyer around it doesn't make a difference. If expression is restricted then free speech is being infringed.

You are completely within your rights to say you want to stab John Doe with an icepick in his eye. It's your right to write it down, post it, make a fucking song about it. But if you're sending a letter to John Doe's house about it?

Well either a) you sent it through the postal service, which is illegal or b) you physically went to their house and left a note or something

In situation a) it has nothing to do with free speech, you are using a provided and optional service and they have the right to restrict that. In situation b) you are trespassing on private property and leaving threats.

1) If the postal service was completely privatized then they would have the right to refuse to carry my letters. Whether a non-privatized post service has that right is somewhat more complex. Regardless, the state would still have no right to punish me. The death threat is simply me expressing myself. If you go through the US Code on threats through the mail for example you'll see that all of the crimes within relate to what is said in the letter... i.e. the expression. That's an open and clear restriction on freedom of speech; I am allowed to write a letter expressing how I dislike someone. I am not allowed to write a letter expressing how I dislike someone and intend to kill them. That's a restriction on what I can express.

2) Criminal trespass generally requires the person in question to have been explicitly refused permission to enter another's property. Until they have been refused permission (or been asked to leave) they are free to go there. This would also only apply in circumstances where the person being stalked/threatened owns where the message could be posted/delivered; if there was a post box or a post room (such as in some apartment blocks) in a public area (or in a communal area that the stalker/threatener also has permission to be in) then it wouldn't apply.

The only area that we truly lack in, and sadly will continue to for some years I suspect, is the digital realm. While you can file a restraining order against someone stalking you or sending you letters, the internet has made it very hard to get away from threats, slander, etc. That's our real grey area that eventually we will have to define where one's personal 'space' in cyberspace begins and ends.

There's nothing fundamentally different about the online world to the offline one. An email is the equivalent to a letter. A post on a forum is the equivalent to putting something in a public correspondence journal. An article on a website is the equivalent to an article in a newspaper. A post on twitter is the equivalent of posting something on a (physical) notice board (and if you @ someone the equivalent of an open letter that you send to the person in question and also post publicly). The scale and ease that things may be seen has changed but the underlying principles remain the same.

Either way waving a flag of 'You don't REALLY want free speech' has nothing to do with the fact that the essential point of this thread is that some people believe they have the right to suppress the speech of another because their personal beliefs are offended. And you are right, we do not have truly completely free speech in the US or anywhere else in the world that I know of.

But it doesn't mean I'm going to sit by and agree that we should legislate that things like Charlie Hebo's cartoons and writings should be made illegal because they are 'provocative' towards religion or anything else.

1) Unless I'm misreading the OP and Kythia's following posts, the essential point of the thread was about whether (in moral rather than legal terms) it was possible to be so offensive that you deserve a punch?  Should it be allowed to be that offensive?  Should it be allowed to get that punch?  And so forth.

2) But it does mean that on in turn can't wave a flag going "freedom of speech" alone as the reason for why someone should be allowed to offend others. There are restrictions on freedom of speech... the very ones I mention here... that virtually everyone agrees with. And once you've agreed that freedom of speech can be rightfully restricted in some circumstances then the question is no longer about freedom of speech itself, it's about where's the correct place to draw the line. And that's a different question.

Indeed, and I've always - to veer off topic for a bit - suspected this is one of the reasons I've never heard a good defence of it, most attempts are kinda stupid.  It's because people act as though, and possible believe, they are defending some abstract philosophical principle but what they are actually trying to defend is a considerably more mundane series of compromises with reality.  Admitting that means they don't support the philosophical ideal, though, and so consciously or no they try to defend a position they don't hold using language inappropriate to the situation.

Agreed... as I mentioned above "Freedom of Speech" is a nice soundbite that has some emotional power behind it but when one gets behind the flag waving and tendency to die on a hill it turns out actual, genuine, 100% freedom of speech is actually pretty awful. Do you think it should be a crime to betray your country by telling a rival all your secrets? Do you think it should be a crime to send death threats to someone? Do you think it should be a crime to do the sort of "romance scams" which one sees where someone forges a fake romantic relationship with someone and then repeatedly tries to get them to give them money? Do you think viewing, owning and distributing child porn (albeit not creating) should be a crime? Then you don't believe in actual, genuine, 100% freedom of speech. You may believe in very, very, very, very, very, very, very lightly restricted speech... but that's not free speech and it's not as catchy a doctrine to support.

Actually no.  I promise I'm not just being deliberately obstructionist here.  I've not yet fully decided where I stand on this but I am increasingly leaning towards the "overreaction" viewpoint not the "wrong in principle" viewpoint.

I think we're slightly at cross-purposes here; the "issue" I was pointing out largely follows your own thinking. Once we accept that one can be morally justified in punching someone who insults your child we can no longer argue that it was wrong in principle for people to physically attack the Charlie Hebdo staff. The terms of the discussion have gone beyond whether it was right or wrong for them to do so and instead gone on to whether it was right or wrong for them to attack as severely as they did.

I think I disagree with the intent behind "because something is more justifiable doesn't make it justified".  Sticking a "necessarily" in in there to clarify (what I see as your) point.

The intent is basically this; I think it's more justifiable for a battered wife who has put up with years of mental and physical abuse to kill her husband in his sleep then it is for a wife who has been in no way abused or attacked to do so simply because she felt like it... but I do not consider either killing justified. I can have more sympathy for someone who punches someone else after the second person insults their child then I would for someone who punched simply because they felt like it but I can still feel it's wrong to do so.

I'm an offended Muslim, I have a range of options.  Terrorist attack on one end, sucking it up on the other.  Various stuff in the middle.  And as "atrocity-ness" increases in one direction, so "justifiability" increases in the other.  I presume we can agree on that.

Somewhat semantically, I actually don't. I think an offended Muslim would be absolutely justified in doing a whole range of actions (generally related to peaceful protest) in relation to Charlie Hebdo that are a long step away from simply sucking it up. There is a point where things become justified... I don't think they can then become "justified+"

You mention that there's a "chilling effect" on speech - defined broadly - if we're to take the offence caused by our words in to effect.  But, well, we do.  It's part and parcel of not being a fucking dickhead.  We phrase things so as not to offend others around us.  E has a civility rule.  When we're talking with our friends, we might gloss over politics and stick to football because we know we'll disagree.  Hundreds of tiny concessions to insult and offence we give every day just because we're a social species.

I generally follow a "don't be a dick" rule in my own life and it serves me fairly well. But even when not being a dick (or not being a dick deliberately) one can offend people. I've used this example before but some people consider facial hair and Movember offensive. I frequently have facial hair and have taken part in Movember for years. Yet I am offending them. Worse I now know I'm offending them and yet I'll continue to do it anyway. For me, that passes the "don't be a dick rule". In essence I balance out how deeply I care about something/how much I want to do it vs the offence caused and how legitimately I view the offence.

Your argument seems to expand to call that a "chilling effect" which is nothing short of alarmist.  Saying "yeah, he seems nice" on meeting a new boyfriend who doesn't isn't being censored, its being able to hold conversations with actual human beings.  We accept that there is an onus on us to do that if we want to have friends.

Yes, there are compromises. And there are some compromises we should not be willing to make. To go with one simple example, if you look at what happened regarding abuse by Muslims of children in the UK prior to the release of the official report and you'll see significant numbers of frequently well-meaning people more worried about how offended Muslims would be then with protecting children. To go with another Life of Brian caused massive amounts of offense... if causing offense was the defining issue then it would never have been made. Animal Farm was offensive to those who supported the Soviet Union... it would never have been written. Harry Potter offended... it would never have been written. I could go on and on and on.

Should we take the amount of offence we cause into account when deciding how to express ourselves? Of course. But it shouldn't be the only or even simply the prime consideration. And basing it on how violently we expect people to react is giving the most violent and reactionary the biggest voice and actively punishing those who don't got to extremes. I may self-censor myself more because I'm scared of their reaction but that has no moral strength to it; to go back to the first example used I don't believe there is any difference in how morally justified I am in insulting the two daughters of two men both of whom would be equally offended but one of whom I know will punch me and the other of whom I know will take it and possibly even laugh it off (while crying inside).

My "don't be a dick" test is about me, not about the other person. I don't want to offend them because I don't particularly like to offend people, not because I don't want them to be offended. Their beliefs only indirectly cause my self-censorship; the direct cause is my beliefs. And I don't think it's morally justified to punch someone who insulted your daughter just as I don't think it would have been morally justified for the people who commited the Charlie Hebdo attack to have gone to the office and "just" beaten them up. Reacting to words with violence (outside of words which make me reasonably suspect that violence is about to be inflicted on me) crosses the Rubicon for me. It may be more justifiable but it is not justified. It may be understandable but it is not right.

[Tairis]

2) I can find precisely no references to it being illegal to have sex in a position other than missionary in Georgia. There's mention of that being the case in Washington DC but if one tries to verify it rather than simply believe it because it's on the internet one discovers that it's a misreading of a sodomy law in Washington DC that was repealed in 1976. So no, it's not on the books either.

Just for reference, this is the court case in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick

Not quite correct, it was all oral and anal sex was illegal in the state of GA.

No, it's a free speech issue (if we want actual, genuine 100% free speech). Ames and Hanssen (the two people I mentioned in this context) weren't prosecuted for intellectual property crimes, they were prosecuted for espionage. Their methods generally involved writing or directly talking to the Soviets. Hence, expression, hence a restriction on freedom of speech.

If you want to extend the discussion to IP laws and how they'd also almost all disappear if we had genuine, 100% free speech that's fine. But if we have genuine, 100% freedom of expression then how can I be prosecuted for what I express... even if that expression is revealing secrets to the Soviets?

They were prosecuted for espionage because espionage fit their crime. At it's most basic level, though, classified information is information owned by the government. You are taking something owned by someone else and giving it away.

1) Money doesn't need to change hands for their to be a fraud; pecuniary advantage is enough.

2) If there's no deception there's no crime.

But my expression is still being restricted. Lying is still expressing oneself. If I lie and as a result gain a pecuniary advantage I have still expressed myself. If the state then prosecutes me for that I am still having my speech punished. Again, how is preventing me from saying that my company is about to make a $100,000,000 profit when it's actually made a $100,000,000 loss not restricting what I can say?

Money HAS to change hands for you to have a pecuniary advantage. It might not be as blatant as 'You wired me 5000 dollars' but somehow MONEY has to be involved. You have to be gaining money somewhere for you to be committing fraud.

1) Technically it's not illegal to visit Cuba; the restrictions apply to trading or providing money to them.

2) Freedom of travel is certainly a freedom of expression/speech issue when one debates the theory and not the current legal framework. Otherwise a law requiring everyone to stay in the exact spot they currently occupy would have no freedom of expression/speech implications. Clearly it does.

Yes, you are correct it's *technically* legal to visit Cuba, but for all extents and purposes it is illegal as you commit a crime by spending any money there. One of many things I disagree with.

Freedom of travel and freedom of speech, however, I consider two separate rights. Yes they are definitely related but they aren't one and the same.

1) In the child abuse examples I gave the person in question isn't directly harming the child. They're simply looking at/distributing pictures/video of them.

This once again ties into the idea of ownership of ideas, images, etc. But you are effectively trading someone else's personal image without their consent. A fact compounded by the fact that they werent old enough to consent in the first place.

2) Remember, we're talking about actual, genuine 100% freedom of speech. Complete freedom of speech. Freedom to speak without restriction. In such a situation the fact that I'm expressing myself trumps everything else. If anything else is more important then you're not talking about free speech, you're talking about some form of regulated and restricted speech. It may be incredibly lightly restricted speech but it is still not free. That's the point. Free speech, much like meritocracy, is a nice sounding concept that virtually everyone wants to support... but when actually looked at it becomes pretty damn dystopian.

Again, they can't avoid the free speech issue. If there is a restriction on what I say or how I express myself then there is a free speech issue and in a 100%, genuine free speech situation any restriction of it would have to be removed. Trying to lawyer around it doesn't make a difference. If expression is restricted then free speech is being infringed.

This is completely circular reasoning.

Suppressing someone's expression is a violation of free speech. But everything is an expression so you're always suppressing free speech. This chain only works if you allow anyone to legally qualify anything as 'expression' regardless of its infringing upon the rights of others.  As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is an individual right, as in an individual can exercise it.

You do not get to use it to commit crimes against others and call it free speech because then you are violating other rights.

Your definition of free speech has nothing to do with speech. It's basically just the baseline argument of anarchy because in your terms literally anything a human being does is 'expression'. 'You can't tell me not to do something if I have a right to be free because then I'm not truly free'.

1) If the postal service was completely privatized then they would have the right to refuse to carry my letters. Whether a non-privatized post service has that right is somewhat more complex. Regardless, the state would still have no right to punish me. The death threat is simply me expressing myself. If you go through the US Code on threats through the mail for example you'll see that all of the crimes within relate to what is said in the letter... i.e. the expression. That's an open and clear restriction on freedom of speech; I am allowed to write a letter expressing how I dislike someone. I am not allowed to write a letter expressing how I dislike someone and intend to kill them. That's a restriction on what I can express.

Except... the postal service is not a right? The US postal service is not legally or constitutionally obligated to deliver your mail as a basic part of you being a citizen. You have to pay them to do it. You have to abide by their rules to use their service.

2) Criminal trespass generally requires the person in question to have been explicitly refused permission to enter another's property. Until they have been refused permission (or been asked to leave) they are free to go there. This would also only apply in circumstances where the person being stalked/threatened owns where the message could be posted/delivered; if there was a post box or a post room (such as in some apartment blocks) in a public area (or in a communal area that the stalker/threatener also has permission to be in) then it wouldn't apply.

Quite right... which means someone comes and leaves you a death note. You tell them not to do so again and not to come back. If they continue they are now... trespassing. I'm not saying its a perfect system, few are. Stalking laws in general are byzantine and often ineffective things. But they have little to do with speech and much more to do with actions. No one is telling person A it's illegal to write what they write. What they do with those writings and how they act towards the victim is the problem.

There's nothing fundamentally different about the online world to the offline one. An email is the equivalent to a letter. A post on a forum is the equivalent to putting something in a public correspondence journal. An article on a website is the equivalent to an article in a newspaper. A post on twitter is the equivalent of posting something on a (physical) notice board (and if you @ someone the equivalent of an open letter that you send to the person in question and also post publicly). The scale and ease that things may be seen has changed but the underlying principles remain the same.

Except none of that is true. A post on a forum is not the same as writing in a journal or twitter post being a bulletin board post. That is a flaw in the way we think about the digital world, we want to force it to conform to the physical world we're familiar with. It's not going to.

Digital correspondence can't be physically destroyed or protected in the same manner, it's reach is vastly longer than that of almost any physical medium. It can be more easily manipulated and misrepresented. It IS a different animal and until we start treating it as such... we're always going to be one step behind.

1) Unless I'm misreading the OP and Kythia's following posts, the essential point of the thread was about whether (in moral rather than legal terms) it was possible to be so offensive that you deserve a punch?  Should it be allowed to be that offensive?  Should it be allowed to get that punch?  And so forth.

2) But it does mean that on in turn can't wave a flag going "freedom of speech" alone as the reason for why someone should be allowed to offend others. There are restrictions on freedom of speech... the very ones I mention here... that virtually everyone agrees with. And once you've agreed that freedom of speech can be rightfully restricted in some circumstances then the question is no longer about freedom of speech itself, it's about where's the correct place to draw the line. And that's a different question.

And my answer remains the same: No, you NEVER have the right to punch someone because they're offending you. Because you do not possess the right to make it a crime to offend you.

That is what freedom of speech is about. It's the right of the individual to express their views, desires, emotions, etc. It is not the right to abuse the rights of others and call it 'expression'.

If you want to say that stopping someone from doing anything is stopping them from expressing themselves? Then this entire conversation is completely irrelevant because the concept of freedom itself is irrelevant in your world. By that definition there can be no freedom of any kind because something is always going to restrict your right to freedom, ergo you cannot actually be free since there is a restriction on you. The same circular path of reasoning.

My stance is and always will be very simple: rights are possessed by an individual and should be inviolate but they only extend as far as the individual. One person's right doesn't allow them to cancel out someone else's like some kind of card game.

[AndyZ]

Intentions aren't magical fairy dust that you can sprinkle over things to change what you actually do.  If I say something offensive to you, its not magically less offensive because I didn't really mean it.

I meant to comment on this, forgot all about it, then read up on something that reminded me of it.  I figured I'd share.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/129146/sorry-you-called-me-what

There's a nasty stereotype out there concerning Jews and money.  Stereotypes come up in one of two ways: either someone honestly believes it and states it as a fact, or someone laughs and is trying to be funny by playing on old stereotypes.

The article uses the words naivete and malice, which I'll adopt myself.

I don't think we should punish naivete.  We're taught that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there are particular words that would cause great offense that I've only ever used once, in a three word sentence asking my mother "What's a ******?"

If we accept naivete but punish malice, we merely encourage the malicious to feign naivete.  For example, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/11/charlie-rangel-calling-tea-partiers-white-crackers/  Naivete or malice?  How could we possibly get into that?  Another recent example at http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/politics/joe-biden-jewish-term/

Encouraging silence does not change minds or hearts.  Instead, we simply allow bad ideas to fester.  The best way to educate people on this stuff is to find them, and the best way to do that is to let them say that they have such beliefs openly, and enter a debate to disprove them.

That's my suggestion for legal, though.  Morally, I'd consider it bad to be malicious but not to be naive.

Admittedly I'm not doing well in keeping up with this thread.

[AndyZ]

So, I have a knack for seeing things in a perspective which seems to match up pretty well to me, even though people don't always agree.  I welcome people to point out differences, but I saw this article: http://www.kutv.com/news/features/local-news/stories/Lone-Peak-sparks-controversy-after-asking-girl-to-wear-coat-over-dress-at-dance-71495.shtml#.VMh9Vovqv1c

“Somehow my shoulders are sexualized,” Finlayson said. “Like it's my responsibility to make sure the boys’ thoughts are not unclean.”

I believe the general consensus on Elliquiy is that women should be able to wear whatever they want and that no matter how provocative the clothing, we don't expect the choice of garment to override the wishes of the individual.  Rage and lust, however, are both very passionate emotions where reason is often overwhelmed, and speech and clothing are both methods of expression.

For the people who believe that women should be able to wear whatever they want without the expectation of someone becoming so impassioned as to do something they don't want (like cop a feel), but don't believe that people should be able to say whatever they want without the expectation of someone becoming so impassioned as to do something that they don't want (like punch them in the mouth) - or if anyone who doesn't believe the first and believes the second - I would be curious to know the delineation.

[Kythia]

Sorry consortium11, I missed your comments somehow.  In short I think we might have reached a point where we just plain disagree.  I'm willing to accept that there are situations that call for violence (above and beyond "immediate self defence") and I think once you accept that you have to accept that there is nothing inherently unjustifiable about a violent reaction.  Which makes the Charlie Hebdo attacks wrong because the level of violence was disproportionate, not wrong because violence qua violence is an unacceptable solution to a problem.  Different problems have different maximum levels of acceptable violence and we could argue that the maximum level here was "none" - which is the case for many problems.  But I don't believe avenging/retaliating to insults against self or others with violence is on the other side of a moral event horizon.

AndyZ

Well, first lets just clarify.  I don't think anyone thinks that people should wear whatever they feel like in any situation.  If I hang around with small children with my tits up to my ears and a microskirt on I think people would find that inappropriate, and they'd find it even more inappropriate if you did it.  The issue isn't that clothing can be inappropriate, I don't think thats in question, its that you're not responsible for the reactions your clothes cause in others.  Slightly different.  It's possible to dress inappropriately and still not be "begging for it" or similar.

In this case, I'm not sure I see an issue.  I only scanned the article and haven't read round it, but it feels a little manufactured to me.  The school had a dress code - as schools are wont to do - and she breached it so it was enforced.  The quote is hers, not the schools, and is merely her interpretation.  Preventing unclean thoughts from boys may have been the intent behind the rule - indeed I suspect that did at least factor in to it - but we accept that schools have a right to enforce dress codes and they, at least, clearly felt it was breached.  The school dress code said to wear a shawl over thin straps and whatever you may think of that, that was all that was enforced.  I must be honest, looking at the still image from the video (I couldn't be bothered to watch it) the straps do actually seem wider than 2" to me, but I could easily be mistaken.

[AndyZ]

I should clarify that I only linked the article because it set me down that train of thought, not that I really consider shoulders provocative.  Just that when I heard those words, it instantly reminded me of this thread, and I saw a similarity that others may not see.  I was curious if other people did.

If I was in a place where a girl was wearing the jeans in your avatar picture, I may very well feel a fire burning within me to do something that's every bit as strong as the anger I might feel about someone saying something terrible about my mother.  Back in the day, we expected women to cover themselves so that such urges wouldn't arise in men, and insults could lead to fistfights.

It seems like we're moving more towards a time where (even if it may be inappropriate in specific locations) I can't say "She put that hole in her jeans just big enough to slip my dick in!  I couldn't help it!"  So I would imagine equally so that I can't say "He called my mother a three-penny whore!  I couldn't help it!"

The two may very well be very different in ways I'm not easily seeing, though.

[Oniya]

In this case, I'm not sure I see an issue.  I only scanned the article and haven't read round it, but it feels a little manufactured to me.  The school had a dress code - as schools are wont to do - and she breached it so it was enforced.  The quote is hers, not the schools, and is merely her interpretation.  Preventing unclean thoughts from boys may have been the intent behind the rule - indeed I suspect that did at least factor in to it - but we accept that schools have a right to enforce dress codes and they, at least, clearly felt it was breached.  The school dress code said to wear a shawl over thin straps and whatever you may think of that, that was all that was enforced.  I must be honest, looking at the still image from the video (I couldn't be bothered to watch it) the straps do actually seem wider than 2" to me, but I could easily be mistaken.

I actually read the article yesterday - her straps were actually within the dress-code standards.  There was also a bit in it about how other girls were wearing far more revealing dresses and not dinged on the dress-code.

[Kythia]

I actually read the article yesterday - her straps were actually within the dress-code standards.  There was also a bit in it about how other girls were wearing far more revealing dresses and not dinged on the dress-code.

If that's the case it would seem to argue against her interpretation then.  If other girls were wearing things more likely to inflame boys' lusts and no mention was made, it makes it a little hard to support her assertion that thats why it was done. 

I think we have the age old problem of "teacher doesn't like me" here, rather than anything else.

[gaggedLouise]

If that's the case it would seem to argue against her interpretation then.  If other girls were wearing things more likely to inflame boys' lusts and no mention was made, it makes it a little hard to support her assertion that thats why it was done. 

I think we have the age old problem of "teacher doesn't like me" here, rather than anything else.

Well, if she was well within the dress code as upheld by her school, and wasn't wearing anything seen as quite out of place either (such as e.g. a clown outfit or clothing imitating some partiular job uniform) and she still got rebuked for what she wore by the staff, then it begs the question: was she getting chastized simply because of the kind of person she was? for her "attitude" (verbal and non-verbal)? Or because the teacher had a thorn in the side to her from before? - or well, for no reason at all?

And if she was being put down on ay of those grounds, but using her dress as a pretext, wasn't that rather unprofessional?


(The pictures of the dress in question certainly don't look like it's unduly revealing to me, the cut is rather modest...)  ;)