free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:10 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:The greatest asset to having laws is gained by their reliable enforcement. It is the knowledge that the laws will be enforced that allows a society to function cooperatively. It isn't as much about whether the laws are good or bad - but that they are consistent and known.


The reason people make and enforce laws is because they believe that the act of doing so together with its consequences is more preferrable than any other act and its consequences.

That's the purpose of laws -- to create a better life.

If a law does not fulfill its purpose, it's a bad law. If not enforcing a law leads to better consequences than enforcing a law, then it's a bad law. If a different law does a better job, it's a bad law. And so on.

Regardless of the purpose, regardless of being good or bad - if a law is not consistently enforced
- it isn't a law at all.

What if the laws of physics didn't exist at all? What if everything merely behaved randomly - obeying nothing - no gravity, no electric polar attraction, no momentum, no molecular bonding - none of it?

What would the universe be? Do you think people could exist at all?

Are those laws there only to serve the purpose of benefiting Man?

Laws give structure from which life can form and grow
- regardless of what their purpose might have been.

Without the enforcement of laws - there is no society - at all - good or bad.

Or as James put it -
James S Saint » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:23 am wrote:So I propose to you, with far more than a modicum of confidence, that God, the creator of the universe and determiner of all that can or cannot be, is what you have previously known as "Impossibility" itself. God is not any particular impossible task, but rather the very principle of impossibility - "the fact that some things can never occur". God is not the lack of occurrence, not an entity that is itself impossible, but rather the very existence of the limit to possibility.

If there is a limit to possibility, God exists as that limit.

It is, in fact, the limits of what can possibly exist that determines what does exist.
James S Saint » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:47 pm wrote:Nothing is possible until something is impossible.
Without restraint (aka "with only liberalism") there can be no accomplishment.


God - by definition - is the ultimate law enforcement - without which there is no universe at all - good or bad. You have to first have a structured universe before you can talk about any purpose for anything.

The same is true for a social discourse - first there must be enforced rules (in one form or another - at very least that everyone is speaking a language that others can understand).
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:16 pm

And then moving on -

First there MUST be laws or rules but - to ban a person from a social media platform is analogous to a government or religion killing someone for breaking the law - they do not exist anymore ("for the benefit of those approved").

Then it comes to -

Banning specific speech is analogous to jailing or killing an idea - it doesn't exist anymore (in that setting) - "for the benefit of those ideas approved."


And in the case of Facebook and Twitter -

Mark SuckerBorg and Jack Dorky with a drugged up god-complex are playing God - assassinating anyone who is not approved (Mr Trump) and condemning all "bad ideas" ("bad angels" - "devils and demons") to the underworld - the abyss - Hell.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:59 pm

Earlier you said:

obsrvr524 wrote:I think you are missing the counter argument we are making.


I take it that what you mean by "we" is "you and Wendy". This is because before that point in the discussion noone else disagreed with me.

I wrote exactly four posts before you wrote what appears to be a disagreement with something I supposedly said.

These posts are:

A response to Gib's original post

A response to Wendy #1

A response to Wendy #2

A response to Wendy #3

Then you responded to me:

obsrvr524 wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:
Wendy Darling wrote:Indirect harm is a crock of bullshit, a juvenile scapegoat.


Right. So if I shoot you with a gun, it's not me who caused you pain but the bullet that hit you. I, myself, the puller of the trigger, I am totally innocent (:

That argument is flawed.

Guilt or innocence is determined not by the originating cause - because there is no origin of causation.

Guilt is determined by the first decision-making entity that was capable of choosing differently but failed to do so - "response-ability".

And even that is tempered with sentencing that is restorative to social harmony - anywhere from a slap on the wrist to the death sentence.


I explained that you misunderstood my position and that you presented a counter argument against something I did not say.

1) I said that I never said that there is such a thing as the origin of causation.

2) I also said that I never said that guilt or innocence is determined by the originating cause.

3) And though I did not say it in subsequent posts, it nonetheless appears to be the case that I never said anything that opposes the last statement in your post.
(I wholeheartedly agree with it.)

You then responded by saying that I am missing a counter argument that you and Wendy made.

Where exactly is that counter argument and what statements of mine is it addressing?

It is one thing to ask me questions ("What do you think about this?", "Do you agree with this?" and so on) and a completely different thing to argue against something I said. Since you're doing the latter, you should explain exactly which statements of mine you're arguing against. Otherwise, I am lost (:
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:45 pm

_
    1) The highest priority is to have a means to enforce the laws to be made.
    2) Make those laws via a constitutional - representative separation of powers - legislative-adminstrative-judicial structure - formed Of the People involved - NOT the corporation that is supposed to be merely providing the environment.

Leave the rest up to "We the People".
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:47 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:What if the laws of physics didn't exist at all? What if everything merely behaved randomly - obeying nothing - no gravity, no electric polar attraction, no momentum, no molecular bonding - none of it?

What would the universe be? Do you think people could exist at all?

Are those laws there only to serve the purpose of benefiting Man?


They aren't. But here in this thread we are talking about man made laws. A man made law is a law that is created and enforced by men in order to serve a purpose. An example of such a law is "Wash your teeth two times a day" or "Speak the same language as everyone else". If you don't speak the same language as everyone else, then it becomes extremely difficult for other people to understand you. And that's not a good thing if it's important for you to cooperate with others in order to survive. The same goes for rules of the road. Without them, driving a car from one point to another becomes cumbersome.

obsrvr524 wrote:Regardless of the purpose, regardless of being good or bad - if a law is not consistently enforced
- it isn't a law at all.


If you decide that something should be a law then you're supposed to enforce it as soon as you acquire the power to do so. If you already have that power, you should enforce it immediately. There's no reason to wait.

If you're not enforcing a law, that might be because 1) you don't have the power to enforce it, 2) you are not completely sure it's a good law, or 3) it's not a law at all but a pretense the purpose of which is to conceal your true motives.

If your true laws are unnacceptable to the public (e.g. if being honest about them can make the public turn against you), you can always try to hide them behind the veil of false laws (thereby pacifying the public.)
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:49 am

Let's define the word "harm".

Performing an act is said to cause harm to someone if its effect on the quality of that someone's life is worse than the effect of performing some other act.

It is NOT a reference to physical harm (common definition) nor is it a reference to loss of something of value that one previously had (less common but still pretty common definition.)

As an example, if someone takes all of the women in the world for themselves, they are harming others even though such an act causes no physical harm to anyone and even if no woman was previously owned by any man. If you take all of the resources for yourself, you are harming other people even if those resources were previously in noone's possession.

The same applies to traffic rules. If every person drives however they want, moving from one point to another becomes difficult for everyone involved (alterantively, it becomes easy for few but difficult for many.)
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:27 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Let's define the word "harm".

Performing an act is said to cause harm to someone if its effect on the quality of that someone's life is worse than the effect of performing some other act.

Now that I have settled down from my inability to communicate to you - I guess I'll play along and see where you trying to communicate to me gets us --

(and I dare you to try to debate that issue on Twitter).

Magnus Anderson wrote:It is NOT a reference to physical harm (common definition) nor is it a reference to loss of something of value that one previously had (less common but still pretty common definition.)

As an example, if someone takes all of the women in the world for themselves, they are harming others even though such an act causes no physical harm to anyone and even if no woman was previously owned by any man. If you take all of the resources for yourself, you are harming other people even if those resources were previously in noone's possession.

The same applies to traffic rules. If every person drives however they want, moving from one point to another becomes difficult for everyone involved (alterantively, it becomes easy for few but difficult for many.)

Ok - so what now?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:38 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Do you agree that it is pointless to blame an inanimate object for an offense? Agree/disagree?


That depends on how you define the word "blame". I define it in a broader way. "I have a headache and I blame it on the alcohol." That's a perfectly legit statement given the definition that I am using and it's most definitely the opposite of pointless even though alcohol is an inanimate thing. All I am saying is that alcohol is the cause of my headache. And this is useful, rather than pointless, because it helps me identify a threat that I should consider fighting. If you're working with a different definition, you might be right.

Note that I am not limiting myself to the legal system, instead choosing to adopt a broader perspective, with the justification that the legal system is merely an evolved form of what every single person does in their everyday life.


You refuse to blame the primary actor accordingly and would rather pollute the issue with relativity rather than primacy, the actor. I do not understand this mindset other than as another symptom of the modern virus of nihilsm and its inversion of sanity.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #2/2

"facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything...."-Peter Kropotkin :evilfun:
"I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that
they don't..... "- Peter Kropotkin
. :evilfun:
"you don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the ‘TRUTH”... " -Peter Kropotkin :lol:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 8545
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:14 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:All I said is that a necessary but not a sufficient condition for any act (including speech) to count as a punishable offense is for it to be a direct or indirect cause of harm.


obsrvr524 wrote:Okay. Do you want to debate that one? Or do you want me to first explain why you cannot make such laws?


First, I want to make sure you understand what I said.

My claim is:

"A necessary condition for any act to be considered a punishable offense is for it to be a direct or indirect cause of harm."

Do you understand what a necessary condition is?

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/reso ... ssary.html

A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.


For example, water is a necessary condition for human life because without water humans die. But it is not a sufficient condition. In other words, if you drink water regularly, you will not necessarily survive. This is because in order to survive you must also do many other things (such as eat.)

What this means with respect to my claim is:

1) For an act to be a punishable crime it must be an indirect or direct cause of harm.

2) If an act is an indirect or direct cause of harm, it is not necessarily a punishable crime.

Do you agree with those statements? I suppose you agree with (2) but it's questionable whether you agree with (1).

(1) implies that if a law prohibits something that causes no harm to anyone, it is a bad law that should be changed. (Exactly how is beside the point.)


Is it direct harm or indirect harm not to share your water or gasoline with someone who’s car ran out of gas in the desert who dies from dehydration the next day? I’ve heard the argument that the person who refuses another person water or gasoline has made the requesting person’s life worse at that moment, however the requester is not immediately worse off in being denied. Yet, the denier committed an offense, a crime, that causally down the chain of time caused the requester harm in the future. For some reason, the nihilistic virus sufferers seem to think indirect causal chains bear validity to their claims of wrong doing, denying the ultimate responsibility of the requester to blame the denier.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #2/2

"facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything...."-Peter Kropotkin :evilfun:
"I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that
they don't..... "- Peter Kropotkin
. :evilfun:
"you don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the ‘TRUTH”... " -Peter Kropotkin :lol:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 8545
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:27 pm

WendyDarling wrote:For some reason, the nihilistic virus sufferers seem to think indirect causal chains bear validity to their claims of wrong doing, denying the ultimate responsibility of the requester to blame the denier.

Which indirectly harms everyone.
:wink:
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:49 am

WendyDarling wrote:You refuse to blame the primary actor


What do you mean by "primary actor"?

If I hire a hitman to assassinate someone, I would be an indirect cause and the hitman I hired would be the direct cause of that someone's death. Both of us would be responsible (me for issuing an order to kill someone and him for choosing to obey that order) though not necessarily equally.

If by primary actor you mean "the direct cause", then no, I am NOT refusing to blame the primary actor. (Rather, it is you who are refusing to blame someone you really should.)

It is not an either/or case.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:06 am

There is something you have to understand about laws.

Laws have to be prosecutable - you have to be able to prove your accusation (unless you live in an authoritarian regime). And that is why prosecutors avoid issues of indirect involvement.

In the scenario you stated, you would not be prosecuted for even indirectly killing the man. You would be prosecuted for break the law that states that you may not contract someone to break the law - that is a direct violation of the law.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:25 am

obsrvr524 wrote:You would be prosecuted for break the law that states that you may not contract someone to break the law - that is a direct violation of the law.


And the purpose of that law is to prevent people from indirectly harming other people. The emphasis is on the word "indirectly" because that's my entire point. (That's what Wendy is arguing against.)
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:38 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:You would be prosecuted for break the law that states that you may not contract someone to break the law - that is a direct violation of the law.


And the purpose of that law is to prevent people from indirectly harming other people. The emphasis is on the word "indirectly" because that's my entire point. (That's what Wendy is arguing against.)

And she would have argued that you cannot prosecute people for indirectly doing things because there is agency between the indirect and the direct. The indirect person cannot be proven to have even indirectly done the harm any more than the direct person's school teachers or parents who could have taught the killer to not accept contracts to kill. In the long run, everyone can be blamed for indirectly causing harm - not prosecutable - not candidate for laws.

So laws are made against specific indirect harms then they are prosecuted for breaking the law - not for the indirect harm - such as running red lights even when no one got directly harmed - it causes a distrust of law enforcement - indirectly harming everyone so a law directly against it.

No one gets prosecuted for doing harm (legally blamed). They get prosecuted for breaking the laws.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:50 am

I am not entirely sure you and Wendy are on the same page. You think you are but I am not convinced.

Either way, I understand everything you're saying. The problem is that I don't think it's relevant. It largely misses the point. And that is why I wrote this post that you ignored.

obsrvr524 wrote:So laws are made against specific indirect harms then they are prosecuted for breaking the law - not for the indirect harm - such as running red lights even when no one got directly harmed - it causes a distrust of law enforcement - indirectly harming everyone so a law directly against it.


The red bolded part is the only thing that matters. My point is MERELY that those who indirectly harm others are likely to indirectly harm others should be punished prevented from doing so. Exactly how is irrelevant. Whether you're going to prosecute them for indirectly causing harm or for doing something that may cause harm but does not necessarily do so is completely irrelevant.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:04 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:I am not entirely sure you and Wendy are on the same page. You think you are but I am not convinced.

I would bet that her argument was going to be very different than mine. I was focused more on the root. But we both agreed that when there is intermediate agency, we cannot "blame" the indirect person. I was building the case as to WHY we cannot blame them (which is what you seem to claim is irrelevant).

Magnus Anderson wrote:Either way, I understand everything you're saying. The problem is that I don't think it's relevant.

If you think it is irrelevant then you do not understand it.

Magnus Anderson wrote:It largely misses the point. And that is why I wrote this post that you ignored.

obsrvr524 wrote:So laws are made against specific indirect harms then they are prosecuted for breaking the law - not for the indirect harm - such as running red lights even when no one got directly harmed - it causes a distrust of law enforcement - indirectly harming everyone so a law directly against it.


The red bolded part is the only thing that matters. My point is MERELY that those who indirectly harm others should be punished. Exactly how is irrelevant. Whether you're going to prosecute them for indirectly causing harm or for doing something that may cause harm but does not necessarily do so is completely irrelevant.

I did not ignore that post. I was explaining WHY that post is nearsighted of the actual problem - that it is only breaking a law that can be punished - not doing harm - direct or otherwise.

When you make laws you have to be specific. You cannot say, "you indirectly caused harm therefore you must be punished" - THAT doesn't work. And nowhere in any legal system is that allowed.

It is okay to make laws against indirect harm. But it is not okay to punish people for doing anything but breaking whatever laws you have contrived.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: free speech v banned speech--where to draw the line

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:14 am

obsrvr524 wrote:I was explaining WHY that post is nearsighted


I suspect you're committing a strawman fallacy. In order to resolve that, I suggest that you prove that you're arguing against something I said. I wrote exactly four posts before you responded in this thread. Quote those parts of these posts you are addressing and for each part provide your interpretation. Otherwise, there will be no further discussion between the two of us.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5046
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users