|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gag orders?
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Yo.
I'll play Damascene on the notion that "speech" is any type of expression whatsoever to ask: how far is too far?
No doubt, denizens of the pit are united around an unalienable right to run our mouths off (keyboard braves that we are), but beyond binary trash-talking, what else should be protected?
Where should the limits of speech lie, and who should make the call? Or perhaps there should be no limits (beyond the risk of a slap upside the head for anyone who ascends to ply their schtick on the town). A maelstrom of defamation, racism, show tunes, incitement?
Helluva question. Where d'you rambunctious swords wanna draw the line?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Are you not able to write in plain English ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Why is this in Hell? It's very possible that I have misunderstood Byron (heck, that could easily be his purpose) but this looks a serious question.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Why indeed? I'm going to confer with my Hostly confrères and see if we can punt this upstairs.
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
Perhaps referring to this sort of issue, where Sky News displayed their Murdoch credentials by cutting off an interview with Caroline Fourrest?
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Are you not able to write in plain English ?
At a grade school level, sure, but some of us move past that.
It's a serious question, with meta flair, given the fondness for cyber shitkickin' hereabouts. I'm curious to see how hellions roll on this.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Your curiosity will have to remain unsatisfied.
Hostly furry hat on
Comrades! The Polit Bureau has made an executive order exiling this thread to Purgatory for simply not being Hellish enough.
Purgatory rules apply from this moment onwards. Play nicely, we don't want it back.
Arms Hostly IBBM, straps thread to MIRV, presses the big red button.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Not hellish enough, aw, it never got a chance. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
OK, I'll do it Purg. style.
I'm curious about the consistency of folks' attitudes to different kinds of speech. I wanna see if a belief in a right to use speech for unrestricted personal abuse can be reconciled with the belief that restrictions are justified on speech that deals with matters of public concern (hate speech, Holocaust denial, all the usual nasties). Or, indeed, why personal abuse should enjoy protection that defamation and harassment lack.
What criteria are used to make these distinctions, and what's their justification?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think the concept of redress enters the equation somewhere.
If you exercise your right to free speech to spout abuse, in many jurisdictions you can still expect to be sued (for moral harrassment, defamation of character, libel, and so on). The broader the scope for legal action, the better in my view.
But then again, not everyone has the same opportunity for redress.
French comedian Dieudonné has long been targeted by the authorities here for anti-semitic speech. As a result of a tweet within the last week in which he identified himself with the terrorists, he has been arrested on a charge of incitement to terrorism.
However, as far as I know no Muslim group has sought legal action against Charlie Hebdo for, say, incitement to religious hatred. My guess (but it is a guess) is that they don't want to do this for fear of being perceived as playing the victim card - or possibly since they are simply less well-connected in the courts.
Free speech doesn't seem to be equally apportioned ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I wanna see if a belief in a right to use speech for unrestricted personal abuse can be reconciled with the belief that restrictions are justified on speech that deals with matters of public concern (hate speech, Holocaust denial, all the usual nasties).
The first point that comes to my mind is: what is the difference between "unrestricted personal abuse" and "hate speech"? IIRC, a distinction (which may well not be the same distinction), exists in British law between language which is defamatory (in the strict legal meaning of the word) and language which is vulgar abuse. Do we have anyone here with the legal knowledge to tell us about this, and also what is the legal definition of "hate speech"?
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
No doubt, denizens of the pit are united around an unalienable right to run our mouths off (keyboard braves that we are)
In what context? You don't have such a right on the Ship.
That may surprise you because down in Hell the rules are pretty lax, but I'm sure you noticed there are still 'Hosts' down there.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
There's a ton of different definitions of "hate speech." Some, like England's, are focused on public order, while others, like Australia's infamous Section 18C, are focused on the feelings of the target. Here's the Australian law:-
quote:
It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
It clearly assumes that it's wrong to "offend, insult, or humiliate" people, but, oddly, only on a narrow bunch of grounds. Offense, insult, and humiliation are not, therefore, taken to be inherently harmful. It'd be like saying it's illegal to assault someone, but only if it's on the grounds of their race or citizenship.
Eutychus highlights the issue of unequal application. Hate speech laws can be swiftly used against those on whom the state's disfavor falls, but if those in power aren't sympathetic, you're either not prosecuted, or your "suspect class" isn't included on the list.
What underpins this stuff? Is there any way to apply it consistently?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
No doubt, denizens of the pit are united around an unalienable right to run our mouths off (keyboard braves that we are)
In what context? You don't have such a right on the Ship.
That may surprise you because down in Hell the rules are pretty lax, but I'm sure you noticed there are still 'Hosts' down there.
To clarify, I was referring not to anyone's right to post (like you say, there is no such right, this is in effect a private club) but to the legal right for the Ship to host such material. Clearly, it's thought that it should be allowed. I'm interested in the justification for it being protected speech, and if those who support it would ban other kinds of speech, like the above Section 18C.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
What underpins this stuff?
My rough and ready answer is "social consensus".
On the Ship (but note this isn't the Styx), the rules are an attempt to strike a balance between freedom of expression and constructive discussion, and stay out of legal trouble. In Hell the cursor moves a bit leftwards on that balance. The people who stick around here effectively sign up to that consensus.
On the face of it, the current social consensus in France appears to be that Jews are an unlawful target (for verbal or visual mockery), but Muslims aren't. (I think that has a lot to do with France's difficulty in coming to terms with its treatment of Jews in WW2).
I think the social consensus will shift in France as a result of current events, indeed I think it already is, but where it will end up and by what means is absolutely anyone's guess right now.
[x-post]
[ 14. January 2015, 21:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
No doubt, denizens of the pit are united around an unalienable right to run our mouths off (keyboard braves that we are)
In what context? You don't have such a right on the Ship.
That may surprise you because down in Hell the rules are pretty lax, but I'm sure you noticed there are still 'Hosts' down there.
To clarify, I was referring not to anyone's right to post (like you say, there is no such right, this is in effect a private club) but to the legal right for the Ship to host such material. Clearly, it's thought that it should be allowed. I'm interested in the justification for it being protected speech, and if those who support it would ban other kinds of speech, like the above Section 18C.
But there is stuff that we don't allow, is what I'm saying.
You (and I, for that matter) have pretty much got free reign to hurl obscenities at each other and basically come up with a million variations of "I think you're an idiot", but it's a fact that other kinds of comments in Hell have been removed by the Hosts/Admins. I also think there's at least one example of someone being kicked off the Ship altogether where part of the offending behaviour had occurred in Hell.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Yup, I'd agree that "social consensus" is crucial. And like you say, anyone who sticks around the Ship has, in effect, consented.
Can it be defended on any other grounds, or is it just arbitrary, decided by whatever a majority is wiling to run with?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But there is stuff that we don't allow, is what I'm saying.
You (and I, for that matter) have pretty much got free reign to hurl obscenities at each other and basically come up with a million variations of "I think you're an idiot", but it's a fact that other kinds of comments in Hell have been removed by the Hosts/Admins. I also think there's at least one example of someone being kicked off the Ship altogether where part of the offending behaviour had occurred in Hell.
Fair point, there's limits, but the free reign to insult and (attempt to) offend extends a long way. Should, say, 18C be done away with, as Canada's Section 13 was? 18C specifically targets insults and offense. If insults should be allowed on one ground, why not another?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Please don't talk about 18C without talking about 18D. All of the supporters of Andrew Bolt and the campaign to repeal section 18C usually ignore the fact that what he really fell foul of was section 18D. If you look at one without the other, you end up with a completely misleading view about what Australian law actually is.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Can it be defended on any other grounds, or is it just arbitrary, decided by whatever a majority is wiling to run with?
This, for the want of a better definition, is what most laws are.
As has been shown, making laws which are then routinely flouted and held in contempt by the majority leads to them being repealed. Those laws that stick around are generally there because the majority will wear them.
I appreciate that sometimes someone will want to base a law on a principle they feel very strongly about. However, they still need (outside of an autocracy) popular support.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Yup, I'd agree that "social consensus" is crucial. And like you say, anyone who sticks around the Ship has, in effect, consented.
Can it be defended on any other grounds, or is it just arbitrary, decided by whatever a majority is wiling to run with?
Well, putting my Christian hat on for a minute, ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) I think the apostles' comments on freedom for Christians and self-imposed limits for the common good are more widely applicable (you can see the comments I made about it last Sunday in church here starting towards the bottom of page 2 (on-the-fly translation from the French)).
Apart from that, I'm a sort of Christian Adam Smith: I think that ideally, ideas should be allowed to compete freely and the best idea win. I sort of think this was what God betted on when he introduced free will and the New Covenant, and I'm increasingly coming to the view that Christianity actually needs interaction with opposing ideologies to thrive: hence my support for a pluralistic society.
In democratic society, the price for allowing that is that some people will abuse those freedoms. I'd like to think those abuses could be dealt with through legal action rather than prohibiting the subject matter. I'd like to see a Holocaust denialist lose, not because they are prohibited from making their case, but because the facts can be shown to speak against them; or because of the way they present it.
I marched on Sunday, but I won't be buying today's issue of Charlie Hebdo. I really don't think it's helping to integrate Muslims.
[ 14. January 2015, 21:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Section 18D qualifies 18C with public interest and artistic merit defenses, but you clearly agree that some insults should be allowable without reaching either threshold. Should they continued to be banned under 18C?
If so, why target insults, humiliation and offense on such narrow grounds? If they're inherently harmful, surely they ought to be banned across the board in a content neutral fashion, as crimes like vandalism and assault are?
[ 14. January 2015, 21:54: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Section 18D qualifies 18C with public interest and artistic merit defenses, but you clearly agree that some insults should be allowable without reaching either threshold. Should they continued to be banned under 18C?
If so, why target insults, humiliation and offense on such narrow grounds? If they're inherently harmful, surely they ought to be banned across the board in a content neutral fashion, as crimes like vandalism and assault are?
What does "inherently harmful" mean?
And why do you think that the Racial Discrimination Act is the sum total of the law on insulting, humiliating and offending? The clue's in the title. I'm not going to enter into a vast discussion about the Australian constitutional system but the Racial Discrimination Act deals with the implementation of the international convention on race (the title of which I've forgotten). It's not intended to deal with any other topic besides race.
[ 14. January 2015, 22:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Can it be defended on any other grounds, or is it just arbitrary, decided by whatever a majority is wiling to run with?
This, for the want of a better definition, is what most laws are.
As has been shown, making laws which are then routinely flouted and held in contempt by the majority leads to them being repealed. Those laws that stick around are generally there because the majority will wear them.
I appreciate that sometimes someone will want to base a law on a principle they feel very strongly about. However, they still need (outside of an autocracy) popular support.
The whole purpose of the rule of law is that might be made, if not right, at least defensible. If law's arbitrary, why bother having it? We should just give fealty to our favored warlord and have done.
Sure, there's a Hobbesian logic to this, but is Leviathan all we can have?
Eutychus, loving the Adam Smith example. That's the position I take, keeping (using the forum's preferred definition) restrictions on speech to an absolute minimum.
I can agree with defending Charlie Hebdo's right to speak without condoning it, although given the circumstances, would set that to one side out of solidarity. It could well be argued that, by incorporating French Muslims into France's long tradition of anticlericalism, Charlie is including them, treating them just as it'd treat other French citizens.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If law's arbitrary, why bother having it? We should just give fealty to our favored warlord and have done.
There's a difference between what you're describing as 'arbitrary' and capricious. There's a fairly fundamental difference between knowing what the law is before you act, and finding out after you've acted that your favored warlord now doesn't like what you did.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What does "inherently harmful" mean?
Harm inseparable from the act. Every legal system accept that punching someone in the face is inherently harmful, and bans it, outside narrow exceptions for things like contact sports and self-defense.
quote:
And why do you think that the Racial Discrimination Act is the sum total of the law on insulting, humiliating and offending? The clue's in the title. I'm not going to enter into a vast discussion about the Australian constitutional system but the Racial Discrimination Act deals with the implementation of the international convention on race (the title of which I've forgotten). It's not intended to deal with any other topic besides race.
I don't think it's the sum total, I know states in the Commonwealth have their own legislation, I'm just interested in your position on the concept behind it, banning insults and other offensive conduct. Should it be repealed, or reworded to remove the references to insult, offense, and humiliation?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's a difference between what you're describing as 'arbitrary' and capricious. There's a fairly fundamental difference between knowing what the law is before you act, and finding out after you've acted that your favored warlord now doesn't like what you did.
Yes, predictability's a justification, but it's a fairly low burden for laws. Shouldn't they at least have a defensible rational basis?
You could, for example, have "due process" in the sense that every accused was entitled to know the charges and have five minutes to defend themselves to Judge Dredd, but it wouldn't be high on substance.
And when it comes to predictability, 18C, even qualified by 18D, leaves a ton of uncertainty. It has a chilling effect on speech, as no one knows exactly what's banned. Australia's own human rights commissioner's called for its repeal, as it may well prohibit Charlie Hebdo.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Should it be repealed, or reworded to remove the references to insult, offense, and humiliation?
My personal opinion - and apparently the opinion of the vast majority of Australians, because the opinion poll numbers on this question were some of the strongest I've seen in a long time - is no. Society doesn't function well when you tell people they are free to inflict severe psychological harm on the people around them no matter what.
Man Haron Monis was convicted of a charge based on the same ideas, for using the postal service to offend. I am perfectly happy with a law that says it's not okay to write directly to the bereaved families of soldiers and tell them that their son or husband is a pig and that the body is contaminated.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
And when it comes to predictability, 18C, even qualified by 18D, leaves a ton of uncertainty. It has a chilling effect on speech, as no one knows exactly what's banned. Australia's own human rights commissioner's called for its repeal, as it may well prohibit Charlie Hebdo.
And Australia's own racial discrimination commissioner, from the same organisation, said that this was rubbish. It's in the same article. You're talking about someone who is a controversial appointee.
As for the general complaint about uncertainty of laws, don't get me started. If you write a law with a list of acceptable phrases, how many pages are you prepared to read? People look at principles-based things and complain it's not specific enough. People look at black-letter law and complain it's too detailed. You can have one or the other. It's obvious to me which is the better approach in this context.
[ 14. January 2015, 22:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
The whole purpose of the rule of law is that might be made, if not right, at least defensible.
It is defensible. "It's how we do things 'round here" is exactly the defence.
I find Jaywalking laws stupid and infantilising, and so does everyone else in my country. That's why we don't have them, not out of any deep-seated defence of liberty.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My personal opinion - and apparently the opinion of the vast majority of Australians, because the opinion poll numbers on this question were some of the strongest I've seen in a long time - is no. Society doesn't function well when you tell people they are free to inflict severe psychological harm on the people around them no matter what.
Do you believe that "insult," "humiliation," and "offense" inflict "severe psychological harm" on if they're on the prohibited grounds? If so, what's the evidence for this? If not, should the list be expanded?
quote:
Man Haron Monis was convicted of a charge based on the same ideas, for using the postal service to offend. I am perfectly happy with a law that says it's not okay to write directly to the bereaved families of soldiers and tell them that their son or husband is a pig and that the body is contaminated.
So am I, as that'd be malicious communication, designed to threaten individuals, not advance public debate. 18C, however, goes far beyond that.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I favour freedom of speech. We've given far too much leeway in recent years to people who insist on some right not to be offended.
Nevertheless, if we go back to Charlie Hebdo, even if one doesn't agree with doing so, it's a tenable view to limit Charlie Hebdo's freedom to be as abusive as they like, without it following that if they go too far, it's legitimately open season for casually offended members of the public to shoot those employed there.
It is also valid to draw a distinction between the freedom to express any opinion, and the freedom to express it in any way one pleases, however offensive or ill-mannered.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And Australia's own racial discrimination commissioner, from the same organisation, said that this was rubbish. It's in the same article. You're talking about someone who is a controversial appointee.
Fair enough, but on this, he's got a point.
quote:
As for the general complaint about uncertainty of laws, don't get me started. If you write a law with a list of acceptable phrases, how many pages are you prepared to read? People look at principles-based things and complain it's not specific enough. People look at black-letter law and complain it's too detailed. You can have one or the other. It's obvious to me which is the better approach in this context.
What makes it obvious? For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable. Such opinions would clearly be snared by 18C, without any guarantee of acquittal under 18D. In having such a narrow list of criteria, the law fails even on its own terms, leaving all kinds of groups unprotected from insult, humiliation and offense.
Better, surely, to have narrowly-drawn laws that ban acts like sending malicious communications, inciting violence, and so on. Those would protect people from harm without chilling speech.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
I read somewhere that under English law everything is assumed to be permitted unless it is expressly prohibited. On the same basis, I suggest that the first principle should be that people are free to say anything unless there is a clear good reason why not.
Speech which directly incites crime is a good candidate for being prohibited. Speech which threatens an individual. Falsehoods which are damaging to an individual's reputation. Possibly speech which disseminates information obtainable only by criminal means.
No shortage of good reasons...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Apart from that, I'm a sort of Christian Adam Smith: I think that ideally, ideas should be allowed to compete freely and the best idea win.
That was pretty much John Milton's position.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable.
These sentences don't match.
As for obviousness, I was saying that to me it's obvious that a system that tried to restrict specific words and phrases is unworkable. Sometimes saying "Fire!" is fine and sometimes it isn't. You might as well complain that the US Supreme Court hasn't spelt out exactly what you can say and when you can say it. It has to be principles based. It's simply not possible for a law to tell you ahead of time exactly what combination of words, pictures or anything else will cross the line - regardless of exactly what 'line' we are talking about.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Man Haron Monis was convicted of a charge based on the same ideas, for using the postal service to offend. I am perfectly happy with a law that says it's not okay to write directly to the bereaved families of soldiers and tell them that their son or husband is a pig and that the body is contaminated.
So am I, as that'd be malicious communication, designed to threaten individuals, not advance public debate. 18C, however, goes far beyond that.
This is precisely why I said you have to look at 18D as well, because legitimate public debate is one of the things it's designed to protect. Andrew Bolt was found to have breached 18C because he was found not to be advancing an honestly held opinion, but to be making claims that he either knew weren't true or was reckless as to whether they were true. How does it "advance public debate" to allow people to say things that aren't true?
I talked about lying when we were hammering stuff out in Hell. You told me there wasn't a right to lie. Why not? It's speech, isn't it? You're actually allowed to lie in all sorts of contexts.
[ 14. January 2015, 23:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable.
The latter sentence does not follow from the former. The problem is the little phrase "as possible." Possible without risk to what? Laws restricting freedom of speech seek to reduce harm without undue hit to public good. Everything is a trade-off on those terms -- everything has both good and bad results, and this is especially true of every law.
Is allowing "the most extreme opinions imaginable" necessary? What positive good (not theoretical but actual good) does it do?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I favour freedom of speech. We've given far too much leeway in recent years to people who insist on some right not to be offended.
I agree.
quote:
Worse, this system teaches people that the use of force is an appropriate response to words and images that offend—a principle that is poisonous to free speech and conducive to violence.
In the US it's possible for a black man to go to prison because a white woman complained that he looked at her funny. This is definitely a step above lynching them for the same offense, but I really don't think we need any more laws protecting people who think they have the right to never be offended.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable.
These sentences don't match.
They match fine. One progresses from another: an unrestricted opinion requires people feel free to speak.
quote:
As for obviousness, I was saying that to me it's obvious that a system that tried to restrict specific words and phrases is unworkable. Sometimes saying "Fire!" is fine and sometimes it isn't. You might as well complain that the US Supreme Court hasn't spelt out exactly what you can say and when you can say it. It has to be principles based. It's simply not possible for a law to tell you ahead of time exactly what combination of words, pictures or anything else will cross the line - regardless of exactly what 'line' we are talking about.
Of course such a system is unworkable, good thing no one proposed it here.
As laws are general, they should be as tightly-drawn as possible. Incitement intended and likely to lead to imminent lawless action conjures a clear image of what's prohibited: a firebrand riling up a lynch mob.
18C, by contrast, is hopelessly vague, and 18D is an affirmative defense. Even if you speech is justified, to show that, you have to be dragged before a judge and pay attorneys fees. Result: incentive to play it safe.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is precisely why I said you have to look at 18D as well, because legitimate public debate is one of the things it's designed to protect. Andrew Bolt was found to have breached 18C because he was found not to be advancing an honestly held opinion, but to be making claims that he either knew weren't true or was reckless as to whether they were true. How does it "advance public debate" to allow people to say things that aren't true?
I talked about lying when we were hammering stuff out in Hell. You told me there wasn't a right to lie. Why not? It's speech, isn't it? You're actually allowed to lie in all sorts of contexts.
The Bolt judgment contains this jaw-dropping slab of paternalism:-
quote:
I have taken into account that the articles may have been read by some peoplesusceptible to racial stereotyping and the formation of racially prejudicial views andthat, as a result, racially prejudiced views have been reinforced, encouraged or emboldened.
That's free citizens being treated like children.
There's no right to lie, but neither is lying a crime, and truth is often open to question. It can form a component of a crime like fraud or perjury, but when the lie is a part of an opinion on a matter of public concern, since it's not tied to a specific criminal act, it should be countered not with lawsuits, but with more speech.
Going back to consistency, how d'you reconcile support for 18C, which polices speech on matters of public concern, with support for a broad right to insult people? Surely, if you don't want people to use insults or cause offense in the former context, the latter, without the public interest component, should be even more tightly policed.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable.
The latter sentence does not follow from the former. The problem is the little phrase "as possible." Possible without risk to what? Laws restricting freedom of speech seek to reduce harm without undue hit to public good. Everything is a trade-off on those terms -- everything has both good and bad results, and this is especially true of every law.
Is allowing "the most extreme opinions imaginable" necessary? What positive good (not theoretical but actual good) does it do?
To take another run at the parsing, "as possible" means exactly that: all expressive speech should be allowed unless there's a compelling government interest in restricting speech that endangers the people, such as inciting violence, defrauding investors, perjuring yourself (and I don't like to use "speech" in this way, it's a concession to get past ... enthusiastic disagreement over its definition).
As for why, because dangerous speech is better attacked and undermined in public, rather than driven underground, to be whispered in dark corners with the allure of forbidden truth, where it's at its most dangerous. Sunlight is the best of disinfectants.
[ 15. January 2015, 05:07: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
It could well be argued that, by incorporating French Muslims into France's long tradition of anticlericalism, Charlie is including them, treating them just as it'd treat other French citizens.
I think that France's long tradition of anticlericalism is one of the aspects of the social consensus here that is going to have to change, indeed for my money it'd be one of the best possible outcomes of this crisis.
Leaving anticlericalism behind does not of course mean banning poking fun at religions of all stripes, but there's a time to speak and a time to remain silent. In fact timing is probably another consideration in free speech, modifying whether something can be considered inflammatory.
[ 15. January 2015, 05:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Byron, saying that lying isn't a crime doesn't say much. Breaching 18C isn't a crime either. But lying can get you sued for defamation, can't it?
It is also clear from your comments that you have completely misread 18D so I suggest you read it again. You seem to think it has the opposite effect to the effect it actually had.
I still maintain, as does mousethief, that your sentences don't logically follow. Why is there no marketplace of ideas unless it includes extreme ideas? That's like telling a shopkeeper he has no shop unless he stocks things no one wants to buy. Have you actually thought about what labelling an idea as extreme MEANS?
[ 15. January 2015, 05:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Going back to consistency, how d'you reconcile support for 18C, which polices speech on matters of public concern, with support for a broad right to insult people? Surely, if you don't want people to use insults or cause offense in the former context, the latter, without the public interest component, should be even more tightly policed.
To be clear, this is the paragraph I'm referring to when I say that you seem to have the effect of 18D completely backwards. 18C doesn't set out to target speech on matters of public conern. It makes no reference to public concern. Whereas 18D specifically says that you CAN offend or insult when dealing with matters of public conern.
It's exactly the same way around as what you're arguing would be necessary for 'consistency'. Speech IS more tightly controlled when the public interest component is lacking.
[ 15. January 2015, 05:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
There's no right to lie, but neither is lying a crime, and truth is often open to question.
Surely if lying is not a crime, that's the same as to say there's a right to lie.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In a French court of law there is no prohibition on lying (there is no offence of perjury), so you have the right to lie.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's alright, he's just pulling our leg.
...think about it, think about it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Seriously? How do you get anything done?
While witnesses swear to tell the truth, there is no offence of perjury. You might get done for perverting the course of justice*, but since the standard of proof is "intimate conviction" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt", the actual truth is rather secondary.
Judges tend to use defendants' statements to assess whether or not they are truthful and decide whether or not they are guilty on that basis, rather than to get at the truth itself.
*One high-profile case I'm very familiar with collapsed when it transpired the testimony of a key defendant (which implicated many others) was an entire fabrication. The defendant in question did a lot of prison time, but not for lying.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Here in the UK, it's (pretty much) expected that a defendant will lie to keep themselves from being convicted. My discussions with lawyers tell me that it's not worth convicting a guilty party of the crime they're charged with and perjury at the same time.
However, it's the prosecution witnesses that I have most difficulty with on this particular issue - there should be a swift way of dealing with lying police officers and other officials. Perverting and attempting to pervert the course of justice are still crimes, but those offences usually (at least at the start) take place outside the witness box. Lying while on oath is a particular affront.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that ideally, ideas should be allowed to compete freely and the best idea win. I sort of think this was what God betted on when he introduced free will and the New Covenant, and I'm increasingly coming to the view that Christianity actually needs interaction with opposing ideologies to thrive: hence my support for a pluralistic society.
Fascinating insight.
Was looking at an old West Wing episode (where smart sassy Republican Ainsley Hays joins the uber-Democrat White House crew) and, boy, does that have something to say about interacting with and behaving decently to people with differing world views.
All reminiscent of Romans 12 and Micah:4 2-5. Free speech seems to require a revisiting of the mutual tolerance and, yes, love required of us all if we wish to live in peace. Sitting unafraid under the tree in your back garden and seeking to avoid generating fear in others as well.
[From the Mandela 70th birthday concert at Wembly in 1988. ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
