That is a very US-centric view of free speech. In many other (developed, democratic) countries, a lot of the shit 8chan does would be viewed as incitement to violence, hate speech, and/or invasion of privacy. The absolutist conception of free speech in the US is an outlier.
It's not even a US-centric view of speech; it's just absolutist internet nonsense. The US, like other countries, has a very complex set of case laws that govern speech. Though hate speech is basically protected, incitement is illegal. Doxing in and of itself is not usually illegal, but on the Internet doxing is usually done as a part of some scheme to blackmail, threaten, or harass someone, all of which are criminal. US speech laws are less restrictive than the laws in many European countries, but to paint them as just some sort of carte-blanche is not correct.
Even in the U.S. most corporate-run platforms are fairly restrictive, many more restrictive than Patreon. Speech on commercial platforms has a completely different set of norms in the U.S. than speech in government-controlled or public spaces. This has actually caused Patreon trouble in the past, because on some axes they're less restrictive than U.S. corporate norms, which has caused friction with other companies they deal with who want them to restrict their userbase more. For example they've had trouble with Paypal over allowing not-porn-but-still-NSFW Patreons on the platform, which violates Paypal's no adult content policy. I believe they worked around that by allowing those users to stay on Patreon but restricting them to take only CC payments and not Paypal payments.
If those activities are crimes in a country, then prosecute the crime. It shouldn't be up to a random middle-man like Patreon to be judge and jury and make those (sometimes very difficult) decisions. It's akin to my grocery deciding to not sell me an apple because I'm a suspected murderer. There are better and more formalized methods to deal with violations of social norms.
If a someone shows up and orders 5 tons of ammonium nitrate in December and want's it shipped to Washington DC that's very much a reason to decline and possibly contact law enforcement even as a private citizen. Similarly, free speech has never been an invitation to say anything in any way at any time.
In some ways, US cultural norms over sex, or nudity are incredibly restrictive. To some US corps, nazi apologism is OK and a defending it a vital part of free speech. But female nipples are the worst thing ever and must be banned.
It's a very libertarian (puerile) view of free speech. The rest of us understand principles like civility, that your rights stop where mine begin, don't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, balancing rights and responsibilities, and that hatespeech is a form of assault.
"Government" in this context is not some well-defined cohesive autocratic whole.
The liberal democratic nations have separation of powers: legislature, courts, law enforcement, civil society.
Through these institutions we attempt to develop laws, regulations, and codes of conduct, that attempt to define acceptable behaviour, rights and responsibilities, protections, and punishments.
This is all in a constant state of flux, there is no end-point, no "this is how it is, for all time and places and circumstances".
We should probably, at a minimum, be vocal about what we believe and support.
There is no right answer here, only opinions, and attempts at persuasive argument. That's all we have.
>>Through these institutions we attempt to develop laws, regulations, and codes of conduct, that attempt to define acceptable behaviour, rights and responsibilities, protections, and punishments.
This is where I disagree. I am proponent of Lockean natural or self evident rights. Government's sole purpose it is protect my individual rights that I have simply because I exist. These rights are an extension of my Self Agency or Self Ownership.
Government is not to define what is "accptable behaviour" or to define what my rights are, or what codes of conduct is to be.
Law should simply be the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. This common force is to only protect persons, liberty and property.
There's no point in me repeating the most hateful things that have ever been directed at me, but they certainly were hurtful and made me feel bad.
With that being said, having been the victim of assault multiple times in my life, once needing extensive hospitalization due to the injuries sustained, I can comfortably say that I don't view these two things as being remotely analogous and wholly reject the notion that speech, even speech that I find hurtful or distasteful, is assault.
Well I think this illustrates how difficult it is to come to any consensus on these kinds of issues. Even people that have had similar experiences can come to wildly different conclusions.
Edit: I'll also add that while I personally disagree with your premise that speech can be categorized as assault, I don't think that your position is necessarily unreasonable. Again, I'm not in agreement but it isn't so outrageous a view that I think well meaning and thoughtful people couldn't hold those same views. However, when you start off your argument by stating that anyone holding a contrary opinion must be puerile(I'm not very smart so I had to make sure I remembered the correct definition) it doesn't lend itself to any meaningful discussion.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me". This old cliche is underappreciated in our day and age.
Individuals are free to choose the way they process the information and commentary they receive. When someone physically assaults you, there is no choice involved, and your life is legitimately and immediately threatened by such activity in the real, physical, and non-abstract sense.
It is great that we are all thinking about what we say, but speech is unequivocally not the same as physical assault, and it's farcical to suggest it should be.
If only this were in any way true. There is a such thing as mental abuse, after all. Some folks lived through this growing up. Gaslighting is just words too. Folks kill themselves due to harassment. That harassment? Yeah, it can be nothing more than daily messages and/or phone calls and/or letters. Widespread, open racist speech generally signals an environment where racist actions are well-tolerated, I'm assuming (I have no links to back it up at the time). Oh, and this mental distress from words can produce physiological symptoms. But hey, they are nothing more than words, right?
The old cliche you speak of only works in a few situations. Someone calling you names or saying mean things on the street don't really hurt you if they are isolated incidents. This is the usual context when this is used. But in a broader sense? It simply doesn't pan out. It isn't the same thing, no, but I'm not sure why that matters. A slap on the rear someone should be able to get over, a punch maybe not. I'm pretty sure both can be prosecuted as physical assult in some situations yet in others, be perfectly acceptable courses of action. Same with words, it depends on how you use them to how much damage it will do.
I used to be a Chomsky-esque defender of free speech. Believing the correct response to Holocaust denial was refuting it, not banning it.
But now we know better. How you talk changes how you think. Violent rhetoric normalizes that behavior. Refuting misbeliefs cements the falsehood. Propaganda works.
Worse, the hate speech has become a virtue signal, a tribal identifier. It's become overtly political, a bludgeon.
I now prefer to think of free speech as a form of hygiene. Sure, feel free to poop on the sidewalk, but don't expect me to accept that as permissible behavior.
I see this trend as deeply disturbing where only those official journalist are allowed to write satirical essays online and common persons are banned because they become labeled as racists, mysogenists etc. Heck even PewDiePie was kicked from youtube red because some journalists blatantly mislabeled his satire as racism.
This debate, like most, has a bell curve distribution of positions. Two tails of snowflakes on either side, throwing tantrums, yelling at each other, and the majority in the middle who are tired of their shit.
Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't care. I'm fresh out of goodwill.
My only desire is that society stop enabling the bickering. Which will continue as long as clickbaiting (selling advertisement) makes money.
Exactly. The link from thinking about doing something and actually doing it is much less if one can openly talk about doing it. Oddly enough, much like the act of pooping.
It's true in the ways that are pertinent to this discussion. Another poster equated speech with assault. I would guess most with that worldview haven't spent much time being assaulted in the physical sense.
No one is saying that words don't have significance or power. The point is that, in a very literal way, words can never hurt, physically hurt, those who hear them. The listener has time to collect their thoughts, understand the circumstances, and choose an interpretation and a reaction. We hope they will choose healthy interpretations and reactions, even if the original speaker did not.
Meanwhile, a victim of a true violent crime like a mugging, carjacking, or politically-motivated beating doesn't have time to think down the road about how badly someone's words hurt their psyche, because they're busy bleeding and dying, in the literal sense that their body may permanently cease to function, if they aren't treated within minutes or hours. They were attacked without choice or option, and their body is reacting to the physical realities thrust upon it, and all the victim can really do is try to remain optimistic about things.
Yes, it is sad when someone is bullied or otherwise made to feel bad about themselves. But it isn't anywhere near the same thing as a person who has undergone an actual assault.
The saying really is not really hard to grasp, and it's widely applicable. That's why it's a tired old cliche. :)
How far do you want to take this? Criticizing someones religion might hurt their feelings but greatly benefit the society and democracy. Does it mean that critique of a religion or religious sects should be banned or should we just prohibit the critique or those which proponents are most vocal, intolerant or justifying to literally turn to violence about their religion?
I think that one should be clear here and distinguish between slander/defamation of a person and speech that "hurts someones feelings". If I criticize the ideas that you hold and it hurts your feelings it's is not a mental abuse if you start to interpret it that way it's your fault and should seek the psychiatrist. There is a real danger that we keep redefining words: hateful speech, mental abuse. Ideas are not people, religion is not an ethnicity, your beliefs are not sacred. What is a form of mental abuse btw is indoctrinating your (or someones) children, meaning religious schools are a form of mental abuse, sending your kids to a political party camp or enforcing your particular ideology on them is a form of mental abuse etc. But somehow everyone keeps ignoring it, it's not my kids so why should I care; I regard it as deeply hurtful for society.
To clarify, I am not saying that words cannot be hurtful. I am saying that they are not equivalent to physical assault, as someone else in the thread asserted. Physical assault presents a much more immediate personal danger, and deserves to be distinguished from verbal exchange.
>Individuals are free to choose the way they process the information and commentary they receive.
Some individuals fight tooth and nail to silence this idea because they're threatened by the implication that their own choices have any role to play in their misery. Life requires a lot less effort when everything bad is somebody else's fault.
That's a very (puerile) characterization of the libertarian view of freedom of speech. It's entirely possible believe both that one should be civil to others and that a centralized body should not actively punish speech.
The problem is deciding who gets to define those concepts in edge cases. Otherwise motivated parties try to push everything they don't like into those categories. "Hate speech" is a common example.
The same problem accompanies definitions of "free speech." People may be interested in broadening the concept of free speech so that it shelters harassment, abuse, hate speech, and generally toxic behavior, and allows communities compatible with those behaviors to drive out communities incompatible with them, and effectively take over communication platforms. Some people even use "free speech" to mean creating automated twitter bots to intentionally push false news stories or reddit bots to manipulate vote totals for stories (this is admittedly an extreme view, but I have seen it expressed first hand by people who don't think it's extreme at all.)
Who gets to decide draw the line between the sincere desire for free speech, and extending the line to include disingenuous calls for "free speech" which are designed to shelter forms of toxic and manipulative behavior that people are just using as a tool to push their preferred ideology?
Consider the speech the US founding fathers used leading up to the American Revolutionary War. Some of that speech wouldn't be allowed under any government, including the US. Yet it is by no means immoral or wrong (at least I don't think so). This is an interesting case where the law not only isn't moral, but cannot be moral (unless we take an almost anarchist view that even libertarians would be wary of).
As to focusing on hate speech in particular, I see two major issues at play. What exactly counts as hate speech and who is protected from it. Disagreements on these lead to some people saying hate speech should because they are viewing a definition of hate speech they don't agree with.
Are there any legal precedents upholding this? Being the inciting ring-leader of a violent mob is one thing, but if someone called me a mick for spilling their Guinness, I wouldn't call that an assault
"Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group."
It times past, I'd just use LMGTFY. But now? I dunno. Maybe I've lost the will to live.
Except the entire founding of the US was based on violent "free speech" advocating the overthrow of an oppressive government. So up until fairly recently it was the norm to view speech, even violent speech, as aligning with the US Constitution.
An example of speech that is actually illegal in the U.S. -- saying "[The President] ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself." [1]
Sending a few messages along the lines of
"Hang yourself, jump off a building, stab yourself I don't know there's a lot of ways"
and
"All you have to do is turn the generator on and you will be free and happy"
"fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire is not the controversial scenario.
It's when you yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is a fire, and that is outlawed.
"Hate speech" is a hecklers veto on telling the truth. On speaking truth to power. On criticizing, mocking, disagreeing, debating about ideas, people, groups, political policies, governments, special interests, religions etc.. that are off limits from scrutiny and insult.
It has no limiting principle, is not well defined, is subjective to an absurd degree, and essentially nullifies the 1st amendment.. because almost anything controversial can be labeled hate speech. As if hurt feelings or even deplorable points of view are the ultimate crimes to be legislated against.
Throughout human history, when totalitarian regimes have oppressed millions of people, there was no limit to what could have been labeled hate speech when professing views against the government.
Free exchange and debate in a free marketplace of ideas should allow anyones stupid point of view to be presented and defeated / opposed, supported, agreed with, or not.
Why people should be outlawed from hating things that they want to hate is beyond me. Professing an opinion or belief about something or someone in and of itself should not be restricted, as long as their actions or presentation of said ideas is consistent with allowing others to do the same. So bullying and intimidation and other forms of such...no.
Freedom above all else. Give me liberty or death..
