MountainScorpion t1_j397ruk wrote
Reply to comment by EasternShade in Tolerance for the Free Speech of Outgroup Partisans [Both sides of the political divide expressed high overall levels of support for free speech - Republicans more so than Democrats] by i_have_thick_loads
If I speak the words, "May Zeus strike you down", and you are hit with a thunderbolt - did I commit violence? Did I commit harm? Did I commit a crime?
EasternShade t1_j39cxhq wrote
Did you commit violence? No.
Did you commit harm? Probably not. The subject and context matters here.
Did you commit a crime? Assuming that's the whole of it, no.
More to consider,
Are you clergy of Zeus? Are you speaking to devotees of Zeus? Is part of the faith that this person, or people like them, pose an existential threat? What's the audience for your message?
In the Milgram Experiment, the whole incentive was nothing but words. And to the best of their knowledge, at least 28% of people were prepared to inflict fatal voltages, as high as 91%, 61% on average in the US. On nothing but words.
Knowing this, if someone were holding the clipboard when the 'learner' is actually being electrocuted by the 'teacher', does their contribution only being words absolve them? Would they commit violence? Would they cause harm? Would it be a crime?
MountainScorpion t1_j39f7f4 wrote
>Are you clergy of Zeus? Are you speaking to devotees of Zeus? Is part of the faith that this person, or people like them, pose an existential threat? What's the audience for your message?
Do we assume Zeus does or doesn't exist? IMHO, law should assume that he does not. Which means, absent proof, the speech did nothing. Except perhaps offend someone.
If he does:
Can we prove the intent of Zeus?
Can Zeus be depositioned or investigated?
Would Zeus submit to the judgment of a mortal government?
​
>Knowing this, if someone were holding the clipboard when the 'learner' is actually being electrocuted by the 'teacher', does their contribution only being words absolve them? Would they commit violence? Would they cause harm? Would it be a crime?
This is a loaded question from the perspective of free thought. We cannot prove intent as we are not psychic. Therefore, we can only and should only punish action.
Policing speech is the same as policing thought, no matter how disgusting or dangerous that speech is - history and philosophy have proven time and again that doing so is not a good idea.
The milgram experiment does highlight a weakness, and that is why it is up to culture to fight it, not law.
This was all covered pretty heavily by John Stuart Mill. I don't agree with him on everything, but it's pretty well considered.
EasternShade t1_j39j8dr wrote
>Do we assume Zeus does or doesn't exist? IMHO, law should assume that he does not. Which means, absent proof, the speech did nothing. Except perhaps offend someone.
Whether or not a deity will exist, their followers do. Speaking to them is what I'm referring to.
>Therefore, we can only and should only punish action.
Yet, Manson is rightly in jail.
>Policing speech is the same as policing thought, no matter how disgusting or dangerous that speech is - history and philosophy have proven time and again that doing so is not a good idea.
And yet we recognize speech as a crime. Threatening someone, slander, libel, bribery, and conspiracy are all comes. Intellectual property laws are government backed censorship on the grounds that people can call 'dibs' on some speech.
> The milgram experiment does highlight a weakness, and that is why it is up to culture to fight it, not law.
And we have historical examples of cultures failing in this and lawfully committing genocide until others intervene. Law can provide an additional barrier to inhibit such cultural shifts.
I recognize that it is difficult to define where the line is crossed, but the notion that all speech should be limitless does not align with significant portions of philosophy or law.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments