https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
679 points (92.2% liked)
Comic Strips
13239 readers
3112 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful.. As soon as you start allowing the gov't to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it's the actions that can arise from the words.
I'll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I'll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh when their mind is filled with hate and bile.
just because you can speak your mind doesn't absolve you of the consequences of doing so.
This is a contradiction. Something isn't a right if you allow open season for others to actively target and suppress.
Otherwise, Stalinism is also technically "free speech": you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences.
Be clear about what you mean.
It's actually perfectly simple and not contradictory as long as you don't conflate basic rights and absolute impunity.
Having the right to say something abhorrent without the government punishing you for it ≠ having the privilege to say whatever you want and face no consequences.
Conflating the two to the point of censoring dissent is how fascism, anarcho-capitalism, Stalinism, and other inherently abusive ideologies that look attractive to some when not closely examined take root and thrive.
You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.
This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.
There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.
It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.
The paradox of tolerance is a concept, not a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls':
Sacrificing freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one's mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty.
This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.
You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that.
I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.
Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they're fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.
From context
and key words
and my direct statement
I'm stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one's mind doesn't cause harm. Harm requires an act.
Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl's conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.
Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.
By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?
Complaining about semantics isn't the argument you think it is. Meanings & distinctions matter.
The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice. If you're willing to undermine rights for expressions that won't actually harm/threaten, then I don't care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.
No & already answered.
I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government. Make sure you lock the door in your ivory tower behind you.
This isn't about the paradox of tolerance; the paradox of tolerance refers to a social contract, not a legal framework.
You have the legal right to spew hate and vicious trash. You do NOT have the right to be free of social opprobrium should you do so. As soon as you start legally limiting speech based on what you think is acceptable, you create a legal framework for other people to do the same.
Nobody said it was a legal framework. I am applying the paradox to how we should frame it legally.
The rest of your argument was already covered in my post.
It's your inability to differentiate between political speech and hate speech that's the problem
In modern societies, we're happy with the government banning the latter and not the former
In undeveloped countries like the US, their toddler-level reading skills prevent them from knowing which one's which
There is no 'hate speech' exception to the 1st amendment of the US constitution. That's a well-established legal precedent that no succeeding court has been willing to overturn.
If you decided to make hateful speech illegal, then it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians to claim that my advocacy for my religion--Satanism--was hate speech.
Government censorship isn't just a ban on speech currently deemed to be hateful. It is also an endorsement of speech they currently believe to be political.
The problem should be wildly apparent when we realize that governments around the world have a long and colorful history of making "political speech" that is only later determined to be hateful.
Even "Good" presidents in our recent past have held positions that, in hindsight, are dehumanizing, abhorrent and vile. Our entire "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for example.
Our incoming president has indicated his intention to treat immigrants as enemy combatants. He plans to deport adults who were born and have lived their entire lives in the US if he determines their parents did not adequately prove their legal presence. He has determined that this racist position is "political speech".
Government has no fucking business deciding what is and is not protected speech.
One important caveat: there is a difference between "speech" and "violence". Threats may be spoken, but threats are not speech. Threats should be criminally prosecuted, not arbitrarily censored by the government.
History has demonstrated that such a government can never be guaranteed. Germany had it right when they banned Nazi speech? They banned other types of "hate" speech not all that much earlier. Nobody knows what kind of "hate" speech they will be trying to ban tomorrow, or a decade from now. All we do know is that the people will broadly support it, just as they do now, just as they did a hundred years ago.
I'm going to repeat this again: Even though they are spoken, threats are not a form of speech. Threats are "violence" and "censorship" is not the appropriate remedy for violence. People who issue threats should be prosecuted, not silenced.
The government should not be allowed to shortcut the criminal process and merely prevent such violent people from being able to discuss their violent intentions in public. They should either be prosecuted for the violence they are committing, or their speech ignored. There is no scenario where they should be silenced without being prosecuted.
There's also the fact that Germany's Nazi Speech ban is heavily criticized for not taking context into considerations, with various media getting on a blacklist solely for having a swastika, even if it was meant to be educational or shown as a demonstrably bad thing.
This is why so many WW2 games avoid showing the Nazi Flag, even if re-releases of games that previously did, because Germany won't hear of it.
As a US citizen, I wish I could upvote you more.
Political speech can involve hate.
Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.
You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump. You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.
Hate speech is not "saying that you hate something"...
That’s not what I said.
Not in a modern society
It never has been
I make a point of not hating anyone too old to control their bladder
Yes, that's the idea
I've not got a clue what point you're making
You cited an example from a society that thinks handguns are a right yet doesn't fight for basic human rights like healthcare
That's absolutely not a modern society
Ok. What society do you consider modern? France? Germany? Sweden? Finland? I can show a politician saying something just as horrible. Maybe not the one in high office, but elected politicians. I sure can't think of a nation that doesn't have at least a handful of racist assholes that get elected by being racist assholes.
Suggesting there is no hate in politics is just naïve. There is no place on this planet free of bigotry and free of people willing to have bigots make decisions for them.
Seems like you got the idea.
This is like saying guns don't kill people
The tool you use to kill is irrelevant, because the tool has no intent. Mens rea is, with the exception of a very, very few strict liability crimes, a requirement for an action to be criminal. A tool can not have intent.
Setting aside that the discussion was never a legal one (and either way, what is legal does not mean is moral);
The tool is still very relevant. If you have the intent to kill many but only a stick, you probably won't get as far because sticks are not as dangerous as guns, or even words for that matter, when used.
I see you haven't been paying a lot of attention to the news.
Thanks for the strawman, I see now you're arguing in bad faith (or are one of those Americans hyper focused on guns)
Automatic sentient guns, that's what kills people.
Oh and people who happen to use guns to kill others
Pull a trigger in the air without a gun, and see how many you kill.
The gun is an extension of the user - without the gun, you cannot shoot, just as without a person the gun won't shoot.
Same is the case for words. They didn't come out of the aether into existence, and when spoken carry the will of the speaker inherently.
It's not "just words", it can be malice or hate given form - that is, after all, the point of communication; to give form of what you desire or think to others.