I believe that labelling people as absolutist confuses the issue. JSM advocated liberty up to the point of harming others. Almost everyone in the Western world agrees with this as stated. The differences lie in the vagueness of defining "harm". I don't think JSM defined it explicitly. For some people, harm means physical bodily harm. For others, social triggers legitimately count as harm.
If you include social triggers as harm then free speech becomes meaningless. Only the most vapid and inane speech would be protected under such a definition. The reason speech needs protection is because there will always be some group wanting it suppressed because they believe it will cause harm.
being offended isn't being harmed. People who want to control others who offend them claim they're being harmed, when they're just offended. Allowing those people veto powers on others speech is antithetical to freedom.
It's the veto that's the problem, right? You feel they are claiming harm in order to escape the offending situation. In fact, perhaps they would take exception to your assertion that they are actively seeking control, is that not a possibility?
How do you know they are not being harmed by those who actively utter speech designed to be hurtful? Is it not also antithetical to freedom to allow such people to attempt to make existing in what's left of the commons as painful as possible?
What qualification can you present that would make me trust in your assessment of some other person's level of tolerance to abuse?
And really, "tolerance to abuse" here means "inability to escape abuse."
Sorry, offense, you said offense, of course your willful offending never becomes abuse. In my experience that is a difficult line to always see clearly. Can you share how you maintain that balance always? Your insight into other people must be incredible, I eagerly await your reply.
>In fact, perhaps they would take exception to your assertion that they are actively seeking control, is that not a possibility?
Why would them taking exception mattered if they couldn't control the speech of others? Let them take exception and do whatever they want with it so long as it doesn't affect the rights or ability of others to speak.
>How do you know they are not being harmed by those who actively utter speech designed to be hurtful?
Is speech hurtful or offensive? That's the crux of the issue, and you've assumed the end before you argued a position, so you've put the cart before the horse and assumed your intended consequence. It's not a logical argument.
>What qualification can you present that would make me trust in your assessment of some other person's level of tolerance to abuse?
Who are you again, that I need to provide qualifications to you? And why do you keep assuming the conclusion by saying offensive speech is 'abuse', when it isn't? What qualifications do you have that let you do that?
>And really, "tolerance to abuse" here means "inability to escape abuse."
again, assuming being offended is the same thing as being abused. Nonsense.
>your willful offending
I find your bad faith argument offensive, so we'll take your definitions and say they're abusive and you're being willfully abusive to me - please stop abusing me.
>Is speech hurtful or offensive? That's the crux of the issue
Agreed (well, "can it be", but otherwise same thing)
We heard some arguments that it can be (encouraging suicide, dehumanizing minorities, inciting insurrection,etc).
Do you think it cannot be? What are your arguments to support this position if so?
>assuming being offended is the same thing as being abused.
Nonsense
Do you belive, even if the speech were to rise to the level of abuse, it would be harmful? If not, the distinction seems meaningless. If so, it seems a tacit admission that speech can be harmful.
>We heard some arguments that it can be (encouraging suicide, dehumanizing minorities, inciting insurrection,etc). Do you think it cannot be? What are your arguments to support this position if so?
Some of these claims are stupid, and some of these claims apply to speech that is already illegal even with freedom of speech. It doesn't apply to twitter, given the majority of the speech being censored has nothing to do with that. It's like arguing about abortion by using a motte and bailey involving abortion post rape - its an emotional argument that accounts for something like 1% of all abortion if that. It's not an honest argument as to what is going on.
I think speech in general should be legal. I think speech can be offensive. I don't think most speech is hurtful. Are the founding fathers of the united states guilty of being hurtful, and should they have had their speech censored? They incited an insurrection.
Such blanket approaches and nonsense examples (compared to what's actually being censored) are just the work of people looking to use misleading examples instead of the common examples.
>o you belive, even if the speech were to rise to the level of abuse, it would be harmful?
This is again putting the cart before the horse. "if speech rises to the level of abuse..." assumes that speech is abuse, which it isn't.
It is widely accepted that speech can be used to inflict emotional or psychological abuse.
You're very concentrated on people simply being "offended", as if the law can be used to prosecute you for once calling someone an idiot. It can't as far as I'm aware, and very few people want that.
Speech can be harmful if it deliberately and consciously exploits or invokes trauma, undermines identity, or inflicts significant anxiety, depression or PTSD. Intimidation and harassment are often carried out via speech. It is illegal in most states if carried out on the basis of race, religion, colour or sexual orientation.
Again, my point is that there is a grey area around the line where speech becomes harmful and ought to be censored. The problem is that we don't have a coherent definition to determine where exactly the lines is in that grey area, and John Stuart Mill didn't either.
It seems that our fundamental disagreement is that you do not believe speech can cause harm OR rise to the level of abuse, something which, I as a random dude disagree with, but moreover, people qualified to evaluate harm to people disagree with, and the people who wrote our laws criminalizing multiple forms of harmful speech disagree with.
So, I guess nothing really left to discuss, unless you want to make a convincing case in advocacy of your position.
Wouldn't defining "harm" that narrowly mean defining "harm" for a lot of people in a 1984 way? Why should your definition of "harm" supersede theirs?
(Mostly rhetorical; I don't necessarily disagree with you on this, but I think your take is callous and ignores an inherent contradiction of free speech maximalists).
your take on harm harms me, change or be guilty of harming others...(j/k)
your take is essentially an endless take of "why shouldn't we include offending as harm" and the answer is because its not harm. Or we can just proclaim other people's opinions I don't like as harm and stand in a circular firing squad, which is what society seems to be doing now.
Opinions such as offense is not harmful? He's asking why you feel empowered to define someone being upset at some comment as something other than harm. As am I.
Is it not possible that your unilateralism on this issue has galvanized the will of the victims of the conduct you espouse to oppose you via controlling speech?
Seems that what we have now, which is essentially Isiah Berlin's negative liberty would be a good compromise. Negative liberty:
"liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject—a person or group of persons—is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons" --Isaiah Berlin
Basically working to eliminate coercion of individuals as much as possible.
This state would serve everybody except, of course, those who were seeking to coerce people either overtly or covertly, instead of persuade them, which I feel is something different.
> Opinions such as offense is not harmful? He's asking why you feel empowered to define someone being upset at some comment as something other than harm. As am I.
Being offended is an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with whether you're harmed or not. Being upset is not a constitutionally protected class or situation. It's just someone who thinks their emotions are more important than other people's ideas. Why do you feel empowered to pretend being upset means you've been harmed? It's a fiction that has nothing to do with reality.
It's unclear what your definition of harm is. It sounds like you take it to mean only physical harm, and not e.g. psychological harm? Are death threats or racist/sexist abuse harmful or not?
Hopefully the poster finally explains why _their_ definition of harm which excludes emotional harm, should be considered an authoritative definition, and others' should not
It does indeed seem like their entire view on this issue depends on said definition of theirs being correct, because if it isn't, the view completely falls apart. And yet, they haven't well explained _why_ it's correct
I love how you claim the word harm is vague and hard to define in one sentence then apply bias to your definition claiming only your view as legitimate.
Maybe harm isn't hard to define? Maybe you people just keep making shit up?
