The issue is you can't pick the arbitrator of what is true. Once you do you create the tyrant. For once you have someone who will determine that which is true they can determine criticism of their decisions are also hate speech.
Likewise it is an abdication of responsibility to just pretend like speech can't be destructive. It's your responsibility and the responsibility of your community to deliberate on what sort of speech is destructive to the purposes of that community. And you have to admit that you can make a mistake and deal with it. That's part of the responsibility.
Free speech absolutism is obviously on its face a dogshit principle because it is unlimited and thought-ending. Yes, the suppression of speech can cause harm, but this harm is not infinite and permanent. Any principle that does not allow thought, deliberation, and thus necessarily the ability to make a mistake and the ability to make up for mistakes is a stupid principle.
The harm of suppressing speech without good justification must be measured and balanced against the harm of allowing harmful speech. The existence of harmful speech is hardly debatable: If speech wasn't powerful then we wouldn't consider free speech important. If speech is powerful, then its power can cause damage and harm. Deal with it.
Most people recognize that the reason we protect free despite the damage it may cause is because of the risk of deciding what harmful speech is, can have on society.
If I say I'm against torture in all circumstances then is that an absolutist position? Do things need to be "carefully balanced" because "everything is fluid" with regards to torture?
The reason freedom of speech appears absolutist to those who wish to impinge on others' speech is that it denies them that power, either by dint of reason or (hopefully) by dint of law.
It is up to the individual what and when and to whom they speak or listen. The power rests with the individual. To impinge on that is to take away that power and give more to someone else - but on what basis?
That someone else doesn't like the content of their speech, or even worse doesn't like that person. Deep. Maybe we should try that for torture?
How is speech destructive to anything other than ideas? Just one, very precise example would do.
More recently, Sandy Hook denial is what lead to parents of Sandy Hook victims being harassed by people calling them actors, frauds, charlatans etc. Would you not agree that having people tell you that your child never existed or never died to be harmful?
Since we're moving from destructive to harmful then I'll move it on to hurtful. Of course words can be hurtful and they can even be harmful - can they be destructive?
Still, I wouldn't relieve anyone of the right to deny Sandy Hook or The Holocaust because I can either:
a) choose to ignore them b) argue
If I use (b) then I have nothing to fear because if I'm right and they are wrong then I have a better argument.
What's to fear? Is Holocaust denial more widespread than than disdain for it even in societies that have no injuction against it?
No, is the answer, most people think the Holocaust happened, and Sandy Hook for that matter.
The argument on the side of free speech is that the negative sides of such restriction outweigh the potential safety they grant; not that they do not exist.
We're discussing speech, precision is a precursor for that, no?
Maybe that's why I wouldn't have your speech denied, I'm quite sure I'm able to defend my position. Maybe that's also why you wish for others to have their speech denied, because you aren't able to defend yours.
If I understand you correctly you are saying that it is more about understanding, deciding, and taking responsibility for where the line is drawn.
But this does not help us a lot in the current issue, even if I like the framing.
Not as thought-ending as silencing a voice with the threat of legal action.
> Yes, the suppression of speech can cause harm, but this harm is not infinite and permanent.
What's an example of hate speech that's infinite and permanent?
> If speech is powerful, then its power can cause damage and harm. Deal with it.
Who said otherwise?
I obviously was talking about "thought-ending" in context of the conversation on what boundaries should be set on speech in which situation. What point are you trying to make? That telling people to shut up means that you want them to shut up? Yes, I think people who want to argue that the holocaust didn't happen or that white people should establish an ethnostate should shut the fuck up. But I wouldn't threaten legal action, no need to bring in a middleman.
> What's an example of hate speech that's infinite and permanent?
Inciting a pogrom.
> Who said otherwise?
If speech can cause harm then it is justifiable to redress that harm. If someone wants to argue for free speech absolutism while acknowledging that they are justifying without limit harm and damage to others, by all means they can do so. I think most reasonable people would see how stupid that position is.
You were saying how free speech absolutism is a "dogshit principle" because it is thought-ending. My point is that we could use the same argument against speech suppression, which is even more thought-ending. It's almost literally thought-ending, since people also think with their speech.
>> What's an example of hate speech that's infinite and permanent?
>Inciting a pogrom.
Talking about a murder can result in a murder. They're two different things. Both ought to be taken seriously, but one results in the permanent end of life. The other in and of itself does not.
> If speech can cause harm then it is justifiable to redress that harm. If someone wants to argue for free speech absolutism while acknowledging that they are justifying without limit harm and damage to others, by all means they can do so. I think most reasonable people would see how stupid that position is.
Doesn't insulting someone who is sensitive cause harm to them? There're countless ways to cause psychological harm through language, and most don't have anything to do with "hate speech." For example, you said any reasonable person would see how "stupid" it is to believe free speech absolutism outweighs harm given through speaking. I'm taking that position. Should you be arrested for making that remark if it results in my feeling hurt?
Because that's what the author was arguing about.