Print • Email • permalink • (90) Comments • (1881) Hits •  subscribe • • • • • •

---

Making Certain Words Illegal

P. Tittle

P. Tittle
pegtittle

Posted: Jan 21, 2012

---

Print • Email • permalink • (90) Comments • (1882) Hits •  subscribe • • • • • •

In Europe (including UK) incitement to violence has long been banned by law. So I’m surprised that you want to “exclude from the realm of the illegal words that provoke violence”. I also question your claim that we are “responsible for our thoughts, opinions, beliefs, values, and attitudes”. Opinions, beliefs, values, and attitudes, yes…but thoughts? My mind comes up with all sorts of thoughts, and while *sometimes* I am able to exercise a degree of control over that process, I am certainly not willing to take much in the way of responsibility for it! Indeed, one of the most helpful ideas I have come across in recent years is precisely that we are *not* responsible for our thoughts, and therefore we don’t need to feel bad about the or for that matter feel obliged to believe them. “Don’t believe everything you think” is great advice, I my view.

On the issue of establishing cause and effect, I would suggest that *intent* is at least as important as outcome (and I’m willing to argue that from a consequentialist standpoint!), and can credibly be gleaned for what the person actually says.

Something else I’ve noticed: you say we should “expect” people to “steel themselves against making a physically violent response to words”. This might seem a bit pedantic, but I have long noticed that people tend to use this word “expect” in a way that both reflects and exacerbates their tendency (and that of others) to conflate what is with what should be. I think what you mean is basically that people should steel themselves in this way. That doesn’t mean we should expect them to: in some circumstances (for example in order to prevent terrorist acts), it is surely safer to expect them not to. Furthermore, responsibility is not zero-sum: my responsibility to resist calls to violence in no way diminishes your responsibility not to make them.

Anyway I very much welcome this article. The way we use language is far more important,, in far more subtle ways, than most people are remotely aware of in my view.

“It’s complicated.  Physical blows tend to injure no matter how strong you are or how fit you are.  But psychological blows, well, to some extent it depends on your emotional health (on how mature you are, how secure your ego is) and your cognitive health (how intelligent you are, how able you are to evaluate the truth of the words).  The more fragile you are, the more devastated you will be when called an idiot.”

Or an imbecile?

What would the Buddha do?

Right intention

Although the Buddha was a very intelligent guy, perhaps even a genius of his time, perhaps even a genius no matter which time and age, and he most surely had both the intelligence and maturity to deal with all of the insults, attacks and harm cast his way. How did “he” do it?

How can we do it, if we are not as intelligent as he?

Stoicism

Dispassion is a way to remain both unmoved by pain and pleasure, should we pursue it?

Would dispassion help us to absorb both insult and injury, to become disaffected by attacks against our beliefs? Insults to our religion, our prophets, saints and Gods?

Is it “you” that is hurt by insult or is it your “ego”? What is the difference?

“I’m tempted to suggest that that’s because the physical is less complex than the psychological, but I suspect it’s more because we understand the physical more than we understand the psychological: we know all about the heart, the lungs, the nervous system, the sensory systems, the 206 bones in the body, but we have yet to catalogue every sneer, every smirk, the hundred ways of making eye contact…”

The physical evidence is more apparent, but the cause and the intent is the same psychologically? Kids are stabbing each other at the mere confusions of eye contact, and use this excuse as justification for expressed violence? Should courts and laws of the land prosecute for sneers and looks or their potential and intention?

What would Jesus do?

Well.. if he really existed? I would say that he would “turn the other cheek” in the same manner as the Buddha would have? Again a very intelligent guy, who understood that pain can only be felt by the recipient and with acceptance of the delivery?

How did Jesus overcome the pain of torture in his passion? Did he have a choice?

I would say that his way was forgiveness, but not to patronise with grace, (which is what many use as a protective barrier to deflect infidel belief)? Forgiving not merely the person but the delivery of insult, and moreover, total forgiveness of what destiny deals us, forgiveness of cause and effect even? Yet this acceptance of fate does not mean that we cannot change the world for the better, guiding towards peace and harmony and social cohesion?

Right intention

“Does this suggest that words spoken in the privacy of our homes should be as illegal as those written on the subway walls? Perhaps – if they are as severe as the physical abuse and if the person can’t avoid them (that is, if they have nowhere else to go – which may well be the case if they have children or are children).”

“Does it matter whether the words are written or spoken?  An insult in writing is easier to avoid (just don’t read it), unless, of course, it’s written in public.  But an insult in writing has a longer life.”

Three Muslim men convicted over gay hate leaflets

“Jury rules that men who handed out leaflets calling for gay people to be killed breached hate crime legislation”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets?newsfeed=true

Newspeak

“..is a fictional language in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it refers to the deliberately impoverished language promoted by the state. Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix[1] in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking—“thoughtcrime”, or “crimethink” in the newest edition of Newspeak—impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

#Occupy

this issue may seem complicated, but i shall attempt to simplify:

the old saying goes ‘sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me’ - a lesson early in life to remember… i personally feel that while psychological abuse can occur at early ages, it is our responsibility to 1) know ourselves. if someone is declaring untruths about our person, then we should should have the confidence to say the real truth, that they are liars, haters and point and laugh at them and their un-insightful judgments.. if it IS true, then, perhaps we deserve the abuse…

and 2) self defense - when perhaps we are angry at evil intentions of other people, we might feel like bombing their buildings, and we might feel like killing some of them, and if we do not actually do it or plan on doing it, so be it a form of expression that should justly be protected, because often it is at the people who do have the power to kill and do chose to kill (countries with armies for example) that need to hear the voice of their opponents.. and since those voices obviously are not intending terrorism directly, only expressing anger, it should not be seen as a terroristic threat, it is only a warning that “yes you have enemies.. deal with it.” without the right or a platform for citizens of a country to “redress grievances”, hate speech against governments will become outlawed and tyranny will prevail - for what legitimate purpose?

the very saying that “i wish you were dead’ is about the most powerful weapon that a truly non-violent person can say to another, and since they choose not to kill in reality, there should be no law against this verbal action - even though it is harmful, perhaps that harm is meant for a reason… a good reason.. to have such a person think.. “maybe i shouldn’t be supporting this organization that deliberately kills people who don’t see things our way..”.. the freedom of speech i contest IS and SHALL BE absolute.. and we are responsible for what we do with our emotions… label me a terrorist all you want, only divine beings shall judge me… so what if i wish that some people should die, and to verbally express that is my right, and it if it harms others, it is *MEANT* to harm, since it is usually only directed at others who have harmed ..do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law..

. and so let the man who has no sin cast the first stone.. a metaphorical stone.. and there shall be no justified laws against verbal communication,.... because you can always choose to not listen, and always choose not to respond… if you know yourself, then you would not let lies against you cause you psychological abuse…and such abuse cannot be prevented by censorship and anti-terrorism laws - those have side effects and abuse society much much more, imho.

Emmanuel

Make using the word ‘Republican’ an offense,
the penalty is to have the user’s mouth washed out with soap.

Rick Perry has already omitted the word “taxes” from any mention in his presidential campaign. Folks think he is just slightly deaf?

Four important words to say:

“send Gingrich to Mars.”

One way.

@CygnusX1

I’m not convinced that Buddha and Jesus (if he existed) were so much more intelligent than the rest of us as you seem to be suggesting. The Buddha was a genius, yes, I’ll go with that (I think Mohammed was too by the way), but I have the impression that genius is as much a matter of stumbling on that niche where we are operating in our zone of genius as any innate superiority of intelligence. God only knows how many Einsteins there have been lurking on farms, in factories or in white-collar jobs that gave them just enough stimulation to distract them from what they were *really* good at, or who simply never stumbled on the ideas or encouragement that would unlock their genius.

This is intended both as an encouragement and a discouragement: encouragement in the sense that I think we can all, to varying extents, follow the kind of radical acceptance / forgiveness approach prescribed by Jesus and the Buddha, discouragement in the sense that just because these “geniuses” came up with the idea doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right thing to do, nor that any of this is necessarily relevant in the context of whether there should be legal constraints (and corresponding sanctions) with regard to how we use words. Again, my responsibility to respond appropriately to your words in no way diminishes your responsibility to speak (or write) appropriately, and vice versa.

Expanding on my previous comment about words that provoke violence, the reason why I think Peg’s “standard of reasonableness” doesn’t apply here is that it’s not the resulting perpetrator of violence that suffers in this case. If it was (for example of we were talking about an exhortation to self-harm), then I would tend to agree, at least as far as adults are concerned. How we talk to children is a different matter of course. But if we’re talking about exhorting people to perpetrator violence against third parties, then I don’t see that it’s really relevant. It’s sadly the case that there are plenty of people out there who are likely to respond to such calls, and the fact that we (rightly) consider them responsible for doing so in no way diminishes our responsibility to protect those that will be harmed as a result.

So let’s avoid being over-analytical and come to a clear position on this: in the case of incitement to violence, there is every reason to ban hate speech, and to impose appropriate sanctions, authoritarian stick and all.

@ Peter Wicks wrote: “So let’s avoid being over-analytical and come to a clear position on this: in the case of incitement to violence, there is every reason to ban hate speech, and to impose appropriate sanctions, authoritarian stick and all. “

No. there is is not every reason to ban anything, except your authoritarian stick. Look above. the parable of Jesus and the prostitute: let the man without sin cast the first stone.

^^ that means this: I personally find your conclusion completely irrational. is it not the stick of the authorities that hate speech comes about from? is it not from an oppressed audience who despise the fact that such authority can have a stick and that such audience is not allowed to have a similar stick to fight back with? are words not the only other weapon in which such oppressed audiences can really have to defend themselves? 

What incites violence - 1) the words of the one ready to be stoned to death, or, 2) the actual intent of the person ready to be violent?

We may be in complete control over what you say and how you say it to people, but likewise, under ANY authority, we are in complete control over whether you stone someone to death, or similar. Such a person’s words under attack are not . they are only contemplating their fate and wishing that karma be cast upon the oppressor. such words are to be protected and even cherished! they could be their very last words a human…

Laws are insufficient to describe the ethics of how men should act. THere is no universal law other than Do what thou wilt. Live and let live. Love and let love.. any of your jurisdictional concerns over banning certain types of speech are no less stupid than declaring what you are not to allowed to wear to work on a thursday compared to friday at a certain office space; completely irrelevant to life and death.

Spot on, Pete, just don’t forget (not that you would) that such as Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin, Beria, etc cetera, were geniuses. So a certain percentage of geniuses who have been lurking on farms, in factories or in white-collar jobs have been evil geniuses; it was fortunate they were distracted from what they were really good at (mass murder); fortunately they never stumbled on the ideas or encouragement that would unlock their evil genius.

We are always thankful for small favors at IEET.

“don’t forget (not that you would) that such as Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin, Beria, etc cetera, were geniuses. So a certain percentage of geniuses who have been lurking on farms, in factories or in white-collar jobs have been evil geniuses”

As my college English professor once said, “most geniuses usually are”.

As someone who has attended several meetings and conferences arranged by the Danish Free Press Society, I am delighted to see this article at IEET!

I agree with Peter Wicks in that we should try to come to a clear position, but freedom of expression is tricky business, and I’d rather be “over"analytical than jump to premature conclusions..

My own position is very clear: Again, I agree with Peter: There is EVERY reason to ban incitement to violence, BUT: I am completely against ALL other hate speech laws, period ! - My reasons are many, but may I suggest simply, that the “offended” part in most cases appear to be “the Emperor” / people in power / priests, Mullahs and you name them, rather than some poor innocent guy, e.g. follower of this religion or that religion, homosexual etc., - which is perhaps the impression this article gives..
In other words: We must be careful not to confuse the little boy with the Emperor..

What really worries me is that, nowadays, the defence of freedom of expression seems to come from the political right.. , in the US as well as in Europe, except, maybe, for France, where the leftist newspaper “Liberation” - (founded by Jean-Paul Sartre in 1973) - is a staunch defender.

As an example of such right-wing opposition to attacks on freedom of speech, read this article and interview about the firing of an “Islamophobic” Harvard Professor: (Notice: HARVARD !)
http://pjmedia.com/blog/tariq-ramadan-supporter-diana-eck-leads-the-charge-against-fired-islamophobic-professor/

I could talk about this for ages, - mould write my own article.. - (don’t tell Hank : )

The Right in America is too selective concerning freedom of expression to be deemed a defender.

Joern,
there’s the legal ability to freedom of expression, and legal but de facto-unprotected free speech. One has the freedom say in the Deep South:
“Robert E. Lee was a swine”,
however admirers of Lee have the unlicenced freedom to beat one up. I don’t completely understand what good freedom of speech is if the majority secretly thinks,

“you have the right to freedom of speech as long as I agree with what you say, otherwise my cosh has the right to connect with your head.”

@Intomorrow

“The Right in America is too selective concerning freedom of expression to be deemed a defender”.

Maybe, - and one could question their motives also, but rather some defence than NO defence, wouldn’t you say..

I take note, that you didn’t say I was wrong about leftists.., - and my guess is that the great majority of leftists would be in support of Professor Eck, who’s opinion is that “Harvard should not be associated with anyone who holds such views”, rather than defend the “Islamophobic” Professor.

You have every right to be critical of the political right, but as I see it, they are more inclined, nowadays, to be in support of Voltaire’s / Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s famous:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it !

Ps. Mind you: I define myself as a leftist / liberal, but when it comes to freedom of expression, I think the left is committing a terrible error.. - Truth is most leftists are shit scared of being aquainted with anything that smells rightist..

[our last msgs. crossed, were both posted at 6:03]
You are correct, Joern; fact is, ‘Leftists’ and ‘Rightists’ are approx. equally PC. The ‘Left’ does some comical ellipticisms in service of PC.. a homeless religious fanatic becomes a

“Peripatetic, Dwelling Deprived Alternative Reality Bible Clutcher”;

while the Right (excluding, for instance, libertarians) enjoy violent entertainment, but dislike nearly all sexual expression:

“that movie ‘John Wayne Kills Some Japs’ had plenty of exciting geysers of blood; but when that geisha took her kimono for an instant off I was offended.”

It is all naturally about whose ox is gored.

Ah, this brings back fond memories of the “draw Mohammed” thread of last year!

I think I want to come to a more nuanced conclusion, one that draws a bit more from the points Peg makes in her article about psychological harm. That there have been well-documented (and well trumpeted by the right wing press, often with questionable motives as has been pointed out….that happens I’m the UK too) cases of PC gone wild, does not alter the fact that we shouldn’t be allowing anyone to say just anything. For example, is anyone going to say that sexual harassment (which can often be of purely verbal nature) should go unsanctioned. Or what about psychological harassment, i.e. bullying?

If one wants to be truly rational about all this you need to start from a clearly defined ethical framework, and as I’ve said repeatedly none seems to me better than rule utilitarianism. In this case, free speech is a rule, a very important one, but one that needs to be constantly assessed, questioned and limited with an eye to what is likely to maximise welfare overall. What about slander, for example? Is that supposed to be OK?

Since I anticipate slippery slope arguments hurtling my way, I’m also going to say something further about slippery slopes. The slippery slope to beat all slippery slopes is, of course, the second law of thermodynamics. So if anyone wants to say that limiting free speech is some kind of slippery highway to hell (Joern if you don’t I’m sure Giulio will) then this will make sense to me only if we assume that regimes in which speech is restricted are somehow higher entropy forms of social organisation than free speech regimes. Which perhaps they are, come to think of it, but surely it must be possible to defend, robustly, an appropriate level of free speech while banning verbal behaviours that lead to harm, and not only because they incite others to violence.

In summary: from a rule utilitarian perspective free speech is, like all other rules, a means (towards maximising overall welfare), not an end in itself. Where it can be reasonably demonstrated that the benefits of limiting it outweigh the costs, there is therefore no good reason not to limit it.

As an afterthought: what do people think about the ban on holocaust denial, or genocide denial more generally, in several Euopean countries? In terms of e political motivation for those laws it looks more like an attempt to exorcise the demons of the past than a really well-thought-out ethical position, and one might well argue that those offended should counter with arguments, evidence and whatever PR they are able to muster, rather than hiding behind laws limiting free speech. But under the circumstances, are these prohibitions really so shocking? Are they really the first slither onto the slippery slope, or are they rather healthy reactions of democratic societies to past atrocities, despite arguably being somewhat flawed from a purely rational perspective?

@Intomorrow

(Almost) spot on ! - and great humour { ; - )

Only objections: I would leave the “all” out of “It is all naturally about whose ox is gored”, as I think there are still a few decent folks who act in accordance with Voltaire, i.e. are willing to defend the right of their worst enemy to express themselves freely. Secondly, I view the left as far more PC, but that may very well be because I see things in a Danish /European perspective.. - It is still my impression though, that it is the same pattern in the US, - only not to the same degree perhaps..  - Could be fun to compare freedom of speech cross-Atlantic…

“For example, is anyone going to say that sexual harassment (which can often be of purely verbal nature) should go unsanctioned. Or what about psychological harassment, i.e. bullying?”

Agreed, genuine sexual harassment and bullying are both unofficially and legally menacing, not merely negative verbal expression. Caveat is, though sexual harassment is proscribed, bosses can bully employees- and what is anyone going to about that? there wouldn’t be enough jails to hold the bosses in question
Bullies outside the workplace are generally of a lower intelligence (meatheads), so I tell them “at least I graduated grammar school”. The reply is virtually always “well so did I”; so the counter-reply is,
“then please spell cat with a ‘c’ instead of a ‘k’.”
Bullies only respect mild verbal jousting, not reticence..not turning the other cheek; a fact which lends credence to Hank’s truism of Christians being imbeciles—their hearts are in the right place, but we are right to worry about their brains.

“As an afterthought: what do people think about the ban on holocaust denial, or genocide denial more generally, in several European countries?”

IMO there should not be such a ban. The best defense, again, is mild verbal offense; one can deny the Red Army committed violence against Germany and its allies in 1945: call it 1945 Revenge Denial. Then there’s Holodomor Denial..no one starved in the Ukraine, they just didn’t get enough butter on their biscuits!
(am learning how to manipulate others more effectively—time to consider a career in politics?)
Problem is, what I’m doing above is advocating being a wiseacre—which is projecting.

@Peter Wicks

Great thinking, as always, and a fine illustration of why being “over-analytical” turns out to be a wise strategy. Clear, but NUANCED conclusions, are what we need. An example of just that in a bit, but let me be clear first about slander, defamation etc. - Yes, absolutely, slander is “OK” with me, the point being that it usually reveals a lot more about the offender than the offended ! - Besides, lawyers are making too much money and wasting their / our time with childish “sensitivities”.

Holocaust denial ? - Yes, absolutely, that should NOT be illegal. The best way to deal with - and expose ! - such ignorance and idiocy is to allow the morons max. freedom of speech, as is the case here in Denmark, - think about it…

You say: “..free speech is a rule, a very important one, but one that needs to be constantly assessed, questioned and limited with an eye to what is likely to maximise welfare overall”.
The problem here is this: Who is to decide what is likely to maximise “welfare” ? - In Saudi Arabia, they have the “Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice”, - I believe they are there to serve that purpose.. ?!

The solution to this dilemma, however, is not a postmodern outlook / moral subjectivism, but a firm insistence on OUR “Universal” Declaration of Human Rights, - period !

And now to our clear, but NUANCED conclusions: According to said declaration, I would limit freedom of speech if and when it collides with other Human Rights. Two examples: 1. Child abuse images on the internet. 2. The wearing of the Burka.
I KNOW many muslim women say it is their own choice, but I simply don’t buy that, and in so far as wearing the Burka can be said to be an expression of freedom of thought, I am NOT in support of such “freedom”. Even if there were one or two crazy enough to wear a Burka voluntarily, I’d have no problem with “violating” that freedom, knowing I’d be doing many more deeply suppressed women a great favour..

I see two slippery slopes: 1. Hate speech laws 2. Postmodernism

Another wisenheimer Genocide Denial riposte would be,
“Pol Pot didn’t starve Cambodian peasants, he put them on a low calorie rice diet.”
Such is being a smartass (ass being short for assh*le), however it is extremely difficult to communicate on these matters. Talking to white nationalists is talking past them; talking at cross purposes. It might appear to be preferable making jokes at their expense:
“why, it seems like only yeste’day th’ Civil War was fought…. what’s that yuh say? yuh have to talk louder, mah hearin’ aid aint functionin’. “

It’s not practical to ban hate speech, so how, again, to communicate is the rub.

OK, so none of you are listening the the simple fact that you cannot prove what incites violence and what does not - the violent person is the one who commits violence! No other person!!! All else is subjective..

here, there is nothing new (but very relevant to this topic):
http://www.cnvc.org/about/what-is-nvc.html

NVC (Non-violent communication) is the established method for dealing with negotiating and communicating between angry people, or passionately charged individuals..

and NOTHING in the NVC books say “you can’t say this, ” or “you cant say that” its about HOW we express… to have compassion.. even despite not agreeing with other positions..

AND… it is not necessary to love thy enemies… but I would dare say that IS pretty necessary that you consider other peoples right to express themselves no matter how angry they are, before you pass or advocate laws that would deter one from expressing themselves, which ever words they decide to use…

Can you love someone with an authoritarian stick up their mouth? Maybe..
But how much does this solve…? Nothing.

Emmanuel

Re “There is EVERY reason to ban incitement to violence, BUT: I am completely against ALL other hate speech laws, period !”

Agreed. Banning incitations to violence protects people from actual, physical damage. I understand that emotional damage can also be painful, but I am against laws based on emotional damage (unless in very extreme cases). Otherwise, what happens is this:

I don’t like [ethnical, religious or lifestyle minority X]. Their very existence is causing me emotional damage. Therefore, all X should be killed.

@Emmanuel For some reason I hadn’t seen your last but one comment when I made mine, so take this as a reply to both your last two comments.

It is over-simplistic to say that hate speech results from the stick of the authorities. Ultimately it comes from human nature I’m afraid: we have a natural, ingrained tendency to piss each other off. It is not only those without the stick who fight back with hate speech: those who wield the stick often use it to justify their sadism. The intent of the person ready to be violent is indeed the immediate trigger for their violence, but what helps form that intent in the first place? Does hate speech play no role?

I agree that there is no universal law other than do what thou wilt. But what if “what thou wilt” is not to live and let live, not to love and let love, but rather to pursue your own interests, or that of your group, at the expense of everyone else? Then does society not have a legimitate interest on changing the incentive structure in which you make such decisions?

You say you cannot prove what incites violence and what does not. Do we need to wait for proof? Now that really *would* be analysis paralysis. What we need is credible evidence. People don’t strap bombs onto their belts and walk on to a crowded bus just because they woke up one morning feeling violent. Somebody put the idea into their heads.

@Intomorrow Fortunately, bullying by bosses is become increasingly punishable. They may not go to jail, but increasingly employees have recourse, as society becomes (thankfully) increasingly aware of the psychological harm that such behaviour can cause.

Re holocaust denial, in principle I agree with you, but I’m not going to be out on the streets lobbying for the repeal of such laws. Better things to do.

@Joern and Giulio

I really want to pursue this “slippery slope” analogy further, within a thermodynamic perspective. Our modern civilisation is a gloriously low entropy, far from equilibrium construct. That 6.7 billion people are able to live relatively peacefully together on this finite planet, given our genetically-driven natural impulses, is little short of miraculous.

What drives this? Many have speculated on this question, but the explanation that I find most convincing is that (i) we’ve been incredibly lucky with climate, absence of meteorites etc,  and (ii) something about human intelligence and the social instinct is just enough to outweigh, overall, the destructive forces of the elements and our own darker natures. The current patchwork of laws and cultural habits ensuring, but at the same time to some extent limiting, free speech is an example of this sophisticated and increasingly benevolent civilisation. In the mean time the sun continues to shine, plants continue to photosynthesise, and we continue to raid the planet’s fossil fuel deposits to keep entropy at bay. From a thermodynamic perspective, the race to find clean, abundant energy is the real slippery slope that we should be worrying about.

What makes our current laws and cultural habits regarding free speech really “low entropy” is the fact that, not only is free speech generally protected, but where it is not protected it is increasingly for good reasons (e.g. increased awareness of psychological harm caused by bullying) instead of the kind of bad reasons cited by Intomorrow a few comments up. So that’s the real slippery slope: that we lazily allow a slide back to uncontrolled, alpha male-driven, ad hoc limitations on free speech, which will likely be fuelled, not prevented, by tolerance for hate speech. Taken to an extreme, free speech becomes its own worst enemy.

Conclusion: I see hate speech laws not as a slippery slope, but as a bulwark against the slippery slope.

What about postmodernism? Perhaps that’s for another thread. We’re still struggling to transcend the bronze age religions as a framework for civilisation. Secular modernism was an excellent attempt to do so but also has its limitations. If postmodernism helps us to question the assumptions of both (traditional religion and secular modernism) then I think it can help us to transend, and make transhumanism actually work. But I’m inclined to agree it could just descend into confusion and anarchy. Think of it as the fire in the crucible: necessary, but one mustn’t let it take over?

@Peter re “Taken to an extreme, free speech becomes its own worst enemy.”

Wow, this sounds like my argument against affirmative action. Have I persuaded you?

re bullying and verbal attacks

I have been called all sorts of bad things, and never given a damn. That is why I don’t support laws against words: words don’t hurt, if you don’t let them hurt. How does one become so thick-skinned? Most people of my generation have learned that in first grade, to protect themselves from bullies (and I believe this is the kind of thing you learn in first grade, or never). Bullying is what children do. Of course we must offer some protection to children at school (for example, protection against physical abuse), but too much protection will result in a generation unable to cope with life (same kind of argument, again).

re “it could just descend into confusion and anarchy”

Same argument again: I agree that too much confusion and complete anarchy is not optimal, but having some confusion and anarchy is much better than an over-regulated and ordered society where Big Brother rules undisputed.

@Peter Wicks

Your attempt to see freedom of expression versus limitations on freedom of expression in a thermodynamic perspective is very interesting, but perhaps entropy itself is a slippery concept ? - and I’m wringing my brain(s) in trying to understand you..

Intuitively, I feel you tend to confuse the little boy with the Emperor, meaning: Out of hand, you perceive limitations as low entropy, and (complete) freedom of speech as high entropy - (anarchy..?). That, in my view, is exactly where you and others who are inclined to impose restrictions go wrong.

When you suggest, therefore, that “free speech becomes its own worst enemy”, I’d suggest exactly the opposite: Limitations on free speech becomes its own worst enemy ! - How’s that ? - Well, - I’m not sure how to express this in English, but in Danish we say “Pressure produces counter-pressure”, another law of physics that very much applies to human behaviors as well..

Let me illustrate with a concrete example: The Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik: The 30 million dollar question here is this:
Was this monstrous act a (natural..) consequence of a lack of limitations on free speech, in combination with hate-filled, Islamophobic rhetoric from right-wing nationalists,- or, was it rather an expression / explosion of said counter-pressure, the result of political correctness, self-censorship, left-wing shaming of critics of multi-culturalism, etc. ?

I don’t think anyone has the final answer to this question, - most likely there is some truth in both assesments. My own opinion is irrelevant here, - I just mean to show how problematic it is to think of regulations, restrictions, bannings, etc. as effective ways to combat (high) entropy, and I’m not even sure it’s something we should strive for in the first place..

What I’d like everyone to consider carefully is this: How come countries with most restrictions, in combination with severe punishments, are also the countries with the highest degree of counter-pressure, i.e. most fanatics, fundamentalists, radicals, intolerance, etc. ?! - In Freudian terms: Too much “authority” is what produces bully-like behaviors, not the opposite, - (which is narcissism, perhaps..).

On postmodernism:
I very much like your points about postmodernism. I agree with you, that postmodernism has served the purpose of (partly) freeing us from the grips of modernism, i.e. the view of the Self as the chief locus of understanding, and I also think your warning, that “one mustn’t let it take over”, is very much in order.

@Joern

I don’t say that complete freedom of speech is high entropy and limitations on it are, in general low entropy. In general, I would agree that it’s the other way round: uncontrolled, alpha male-driven limitations on free speech probably correspond to the highest entropy state. What I’m claiming is that *sensible* limitations on free speech is an even low entropy state than complete freedom of speech, and that the latter is probably harder to sustain (less stable) because it gives too much freedom for those who have no interest in respect the freedom of others to express their own bad ideas. I see an analogy with bans on political parties that would seek to abolish or undermine democracy if elected: this is a limitation of democracy, designed to protect democracy. Similarly, sensible limitations of free speech help to protect free speech. Organised violence by armies and police forces similarly help, with the caveats we’ve discussed on other threads, to reduce violence overall. Discrimination designed to compensate for systemic inequalities helps (sorry Giulio!) to protect equality overall. It’s all about avoiding letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

On the Norwegian case, yes I agree there’s probably truth on both sides, and other causal factors that have nothing to do with either. Perhaps the guy just had bad genes. The correlation between authoritarianism and “counter-pressure” is interesting, but take care not to confuse correlation with causality. Most likely they have a common cause: these societies are just less developed (higher entropy). Or the cause might be the other way round: they are more authoritarian, in part, because they have to be to keep down the fanatics. Mostly though, they just haven’t developed more sophisticated forms of social interaction.

@Giulio on bullying and verbal attacks: your response to such is admirable and I try to emulate it as well, but like I say our responsibility to protect ourselves in no way diminishes the responsibility of others (and ourselves of course) to avoid the bullying in the first place. Responsibility is not zero-sum.

@peter wicks

thanks for the insightful reply. allow me to respond;

you are correct that hateful speech is certainly not confined to the empty hand of the authoritarian stick. but perhaps I did not frame the allegorical clearly. I ask you, what more hypothetical and largely probable misuse and misinterpretation of such anti terrorism anti free speech legislature do you need to realize that such laws in these political climates would probably be used to harm those without sticks, rather than those with sticks? and, would that be fair to the mentally strong, who have chosen to not use authoritarian sticks as a means to deal with one another for quite some time now? those with sticks are usually ready to fight, and their justice is usually served with the outcome of a physical battle. those with only verbal ‘sticks’ well, such hate speech laws are probably the only justified way to put those people who choose to use their voice as a weapon in prison, I suspect mostly unfairly. Jail is not the place for loud mouths. at least they care about something enough to stand up for it.

 I simply doubt that this is fair to the man who chooses to use their voice rather than brute force. So what if he is loud?  so what If he is enraged, so what if he is even threatening violence? thats not actually being violent from a logical and scientific perspective. in fact, by expressing his emotions with his voice, he is less likely to be violent than the man who chooses not to speak his mind. this has been proven over and over with many many psychological studies which mostly all conclude that most all violence is *primarily* the psychological result of repressed emotions. expressed emotions = healthy. repressed emotions = unhealthy.

Also, I see too many logistical problems in defining accurately such legislature. For instance, what *is* inciting violence, exactly? (rhetorical) Would there be a semantic lexicon to adhere to with compliance with such law? If I say ‘hit me.” I could be actually playing blackjack, and then suddenly I get punched in the face and then put in jail for inciting violence! of course, this is an extreme example, but you must see the potential for deliberate misinterpretation of the law by the already-on-steroids police forces. The authorities get the dumb idea that with stupid laws like this that they can not only put someone in jail for the things they say, they also get to beat the living crap out of them too, without investigation. this is the stuff they have wet dreams about, im sure. 

This brings me to your insightful remark about do what thou wilt. yes do what thou wilt does mean do what You intend. nobody else. Thus, no matter what I say to provoke u, if I am not an immediate physical threat to you, and you pull the trigger, *you* are the one ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger. Perhaps ‘there are no victims’ in life, but, a shooter cannot hide behind the muzzle of a gun and say, with all honesty and righetousness, that “he made me do it! he was talking shit on my mother”. c’mon now! f**k ur mother! she has nothing to do with whether u kill a guy ! grow up and own up to your own damn crimes. don’t take this personal, Its just monologue

the law of Thelma (do what thou wilt) is synonymous with the yogic concept of ‘Yama’ which is that you act in accordance with *your* intentions. you cannot blame anyone completely for your choice to be violent even when someone has provoked you with hate speech. as mentioned before, if u are truly someone to hate, then u probably deserve to hear it, and of its lies, u must be a better person and point and laugh at their delusions/lies/anger. If nobody becomes the stronger person and nobody rises up to delegate a violent situation diplomatically with non violent communication, negotiation or some kind of peaceful attention dispersement method, and two people fight, both of those people are engaging in violence and even perhaps it is mutually intended, yet my choice to swing an uppercut and your choice to throw a jab are both choices we take upon ourselves, individually. Nobody’s words caused either action. Our minds and hearts’ intent individually causes our own actions AND ONLY our own actions. just as it does speech. Speech is an *effect* of men’s mind and it will always refuse to replace another persons actions as a cause; because it is not that. You see, nobody’s words can really cause violence single-handedly.  Only the self intent to cause violence can directly cause violence, with or without words of provocation. 

confusing to me, you seem to be advocating making laws without social/linguistic scientific evidence to support the outrageous desire to limit free speech.  this still is utterly and absoluely absurd to me..

you asked, ‘what more evidence/study do you need to pass such law?’ and I ask you humbly in response, ‘What more laws do you need to just be civilized?’ Have you not noticed that making more laws doesn’t really cause people to act more civilized , but mostly just makes the amount of prisons and people in them increase?

thanks for the conversation!!

Emmanuel

p.s. I bet George Carlon, RIP
would have some interesting
expletives to add to this

@Peter re “our responsibility to protect ourselves in no way diminishes the responsibility of others (and ourselves of course) to avoid the bullying in the first place”

I agree, but the point that I am making is that our society tends to over-protect children. Nobody protected us from violence and sex in movies, ads on TV, and verbal abuse by our peers, yet we are still here and (most of us) are decent persons. I think we should use the same courtesy to the next generation. Over-protected children can only become adults unable to handle problems, obstacles and stress. Is that what we want?

Also, don’t forget that children are smarter than us. If a child or a teen wants to do something, (s)he will work around our prohibitions and do it. Children and teens find our prohibitions ridiculous, and so should we. Learn from the young!

@ Peter Wicks

“I don’t say that complete freedom of speech is high entropy and limitations on it are, in general low entropy”

I am relieved to hear that, and I guess I should have figured as much..

Well then, I guess it all boils down to: Where do we draw the line ? - Which limitations are *sensible* ? - I have given two examples:

1. Pedophiles spreading child abuse images via the internet, - (actually a specific Danish problem, because of our high degree of freedom of the press, very much taken advantage of by Pedophiles internationally).

Problem is though: Will censorship solve the issue ? - I don’t think it will, but never-the-less I am in support of a complete ban on such material. - How about prostituton ? - Will a ban on the buying of sexual services add to overall welfare ? - Again, I don’t think so, and here I’m less certain that making it illegal is the right thing to do.

2. The wearing of the Burka. - Again, a clear collission of freedom of thought /expression with other human rights, - here: equality between the sexes. Somewhat paradoxically, I choose to be supportive of a ban, - (public spheres only, needless to say), - reason being a cost-benefit analysis that comes out in favour of overall womens rights.

I guess we pretty much agree, - I am not quite sure though.., - I do suspect you are “slightly” more inclined towards authoritarianism… , (and of course you know Peter, that me being a Dane, you should not expect me to apologize for saying so… : )

Breivik:
Are you aware he has been declared insane ?! - (paranoid schizophrenia). - That is not my personal impression, but insane or not, we (Scandinavians) have witnessed a veritable witch-hunt for evil right-wingers uttering words even remotely resembling inflammatory rhetoric,  while, at the same time, left-wingers /postmodernists promote themselves as the good guys, completely innocent of any responsibility for creating this monster. Believe me: This makes me puke !

@Joern, my position is:

re “1. Pedophiles spreading child abuse images via the internet”

Jail them, throw the keys away.

re “2. The wearing of the Burka”

Let everyone wear, or not wear, whatever they want.

The difference is that 1. is incitement to (the worst kind of) physical violence, 2. is just a lifestyle choice.

The problem with legislating against something is that someone will find a way around it. We are talking free speech on an individual level, a communal level, organizational level, even national and transnational level. While some countries have reasonably effective hate speech laws. Canada is one, there is always a lot of time and effort that goes into determining whether what is said is hate speech or opinion. As Peg says, some people are more easily injured by words than others.

An alternative to Hate Speech laws is a Responsible Speech law. At first glance it is still a law about speech and expression. But the challenge would be different. Instead of the claim “Your words were hateful and caused injury.” The claim would be “Your words were hateful and do not build up the community.” Thus the test for words becomes not injury to a particular person or group, but whether the words are useful to the community. In a trial the person/group being charged would not be able to simply claim “freedom of speech” but have to show to an impartial (or whatever facsimile thereof) court that their words are necessary and edifying for the community.

From my article previously on Responsibility:
14. Each individual has the responsibility to speak, or otherwise express themselves, thoughtfully, truthfully and in a manner that builds up the community.
Free speech is one of the rights we abuse the most. We allow hateful protests at funerals because we are afraid of being accused of infringing on free speech. It is necessary to balance free speech with the responsibility to think before we speak. There are a lot of things that we say because we are angry or afraid, or we are caught in fanaticism. A sure measure of fanaticism is the refusal to listen to other points of view. Fanaticism of any sort is detrimental to the community. It is time that we as a species put a muzzle on fanatics and stopped allowing them a soapbox in the name of free speech. This action wouldn’t be taken lightly and it would have to be shown in court that the speech or expression of this individual or group was truly detrimental to the community and not just another point of view. The discussion however would be around whether it was edifying. Sometimes we need to hear the voices of an opposing group. Truth is not always palatable. Yet it also needs to be tested by impartial people to decide if it really is the truth or even a part of it.
This idea of testing the edifying nature of speech could apply to other areas of expression. When we are looking at art that pushes the boundaries of our comfort zone it should be considered not just under the banner of free speech, but also under the ideal of responsible speech. A political cartoon trying to make a point about the relationship between religion and violence is different than images created for the sole purpose of insulting a specific people or religion. I would expect that as a responsible people that we would apply this test to ourselves, and only test other’s speech or expression when it seems particularly or deliberately hurtful or untruthful. We need to listen, but we don’t need to agree. There are other times we just need to call for silence.

@Giulio

Let me say this first: I am sooo.. pleased to learn just how supportive you are of freedom of expression ! - A true anti-fascist you are, - bravour ! - Courage !

And now to..

1. I am not going to argue with you, - it’s just that I don’t see that as a realistc solution. Actually, I don’t really know much about it, - are they genetically predisposed ? - and if so, is a realistic solution also of a genetic nature..

2. You must be joking ?! - “Just a lifestyle” ?? - Come on, it is a whole lot more than that, - in particular it is a despicable violation of womens rights.

Still, it is an issue that is causing me many scruples, me (to some extent) being a longhaired old hippie.. , who has put up a hard fight for exactly the same right: choosing your own lifestyle, i.e. what you wear and how you look is your own choice, period ! - As I’ve said, it is matter of the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis..

@Joern - re 1. (pedophiles)

I feel very sad for pedophiles, because they are unfortunate persons with either a genetic predisposition or a history of severe trauma (many child abusers have been abused when they were children), or both. But the damage they can do to others, in particular to children unable to protect themselves, is too high. With a broken heart, I still say lock them in jail and throw the keys away, at least until medical technology is able to help them, which is not now.

re 2. (burka).

A despicable violation of women’s rights??? How on earth can be a woman’s _choice_ to wear a burka a violation of her rights? If she violating her own rights? And if so, who are you to tell her what to do? Wear what you like, and let others wear what they like.

But I think (hope) you are referring to women being _forced_ by others to wear burkas. This is another matter entirely.

But I have known many Muslim girls who wear burkas because they want to. There is a strange phenomenon in many Muslim communities in Europe: while the previous generation has tried to adapt to the dominant lifestyle of the host country, the younger generation (perhaps seeing that their parents are still discriminated regardless of what they wear) feels the urge to go back to their cultural roots. And who are you to tell them that they are wrong?

There’s too much here for me to respond to all comments quickly, but the following from DJ Emmanuel particularly attracted my attention: “expressed emotions = healthy. repressed emotions = unhealthy”

I don’t know how many of you have seen A Dangerous Method; highly recommended, even if most women I have seen it with felt Keira Knightly’s performance was over the top! My point is that the above seems to me to be precisely the fault that Otto Gross makes during the film (I’m referring to the film rather than historical reality to avoid getting into a discussion about how historically accurate it is). He says that we should never repress anything. Result: he uses his profession (psychiatrist) to get women to sleep with hi, and dies of hunger years later in Berlin, an anarchist. The anarchist/libertarian meme features very strongly along regular commenters on this site, and it is dangerously naive.

Now you might say that repressed emotions and repressed urges are not the same thing, and I certainly agree that being able express the former verbally is generally likely to reduce our tendency to express them violently, but what effect that has on the one being bullied, or on those that might be “inspired” by our words to commit violence, that’s a different story.

Another thing that struck me is Giulio’s comments about the risks of over-protecting children. I don’t disagree with this, but essentially this is a matter of degree. It’s possible to over-protect, but it’s also possible to under protect. Like Joern says, it all boils down to where we draw the line.

Finally on whether I’m more “authoritarian”....@Joern well yes, in the sense that on the spectrum from completely naive libertarianism (0) to aggressive authoritarianism (10) perhaps I’m more at 2 while you’re more at 1? The point, where I think we basically agree, is that we have to be pragmatic and follow whatever approach works best in maximising overall welfare, and that’s not going to be 0 and it’s not going to be anywhere near 10. Just where it is on the spectrum we can discuss, and we probably do indeed have somewhat different instincts.

OK post-finally (another thought came to mind): on pictures of Mohammed, women wearing burkas and pedophiles, Joern you suddenly seem to go up to 7 or 8 on the scale! I have the feeling that Giulio is somewhat more consistent in his libertarian. The Ron Paul of this blog perhaps? (Though God forbid Paul would ever be elected POTUS, I think I’d actually prefer Romney.)

@Alex Your “responsible speech” idea is fine, but as a moral code for us all to aspire to, not as a condition for not getting jailed or fired from your job. Otherwise you’re just setting the bar waaaay too high.

Peter, please repeat with me: Giulio is not a libertarian, at least not a U.S. style libertarian. I am a very radical libertarian for cultural, social and lifestyle matters, but I am also persuaded that in a modern society everyone must be given the means for a decent life, and I support BIG and some form of redistribution of wealth. Don’t ask me to conform to obsolete 19th categories of right and left, I am something else.

It sure has been fun watching this game of snakes and ladders unfold, and to see parties finally seem to converge at some kind of consensus - that the subject concerning restrictions of freedom of speech are complex and profound. I guess that’s why cases are referred to law courts and juries, where even they have difficulties in deciding the best actions to take? And where even leaders and presidents have to involve themselves in fragile book burning politics?

For everyone that stands in support of the protection of free speech hoorah! For anyone who opposes these freedoms to express disgruntlement against authorities and governments and injustice, then heed this warning?

Governments want nothing better than to restrict freedoms, demonstrations, representations and political rhetoric, under the guise of laws of necessity. We are not children, we are adults. Adults than have responsibility to lead by example, and to challenge both injustices and the bullies in this world? Applying yet more liberal laws and restrictions on what people are free to say and think, (the next stage?), is not the answer?

The way to challenge bullies, terrorism, racial and social hatred is with rationality, the way to deal with rants of abuse and insult is to ignore and dismiss, the way to deal with organised and incite to hatred and acts of violence is with law and penalty?

It is already somewhat clear what may be defined and deemed as “hate speech” or rhetoric, (and really, we adults do know a thing or two about what is civilised and acceptable don’t we?), which is why I posted the link to the case in news most recently.

I agree with the outcome and conviction of that case, the shameful thing is, that it was in fact a local homosexual who challenged the authorities to take action in fear of his own safety, whilst a policeman was handed a leaflet to read and he did nothing! The PC was restricted by laws of PC and of failing to understand his own position towards free speech and that of hate leaflets?

Yet more sinister I fear, is that he was merely another gutless and spineless bureaucrat and representative of the state, that oppresses with the stick when it suits politics, yet fails to act and acknowledge and speak out when even his own conscience tells him something smells and reads wrong?

@ Peg?

@Giulio

I am aware of the points you are making, and yes, it is a delicate and paradoxical issue..

I am of course referring to “women being _forced_ by others to wear burkas”, but I do know, that most Burka-wearing women insist it is their personal choice, - it’s just that I can in no way take that seriously, and even if a ban would violate the rights of a few brainwashed fanatics, I’d have no problem with that. It is a matter of choice, really. One can choose to see the Burka as just a (*free*..?!) lifestyle, a view that may be admirable, but very naive in my opinion, or as “the tip of an iceberg of oppression”, no less, which is my “choice”.

Now, - “who am I to tell them that they are wrong”? - (in “voluntarily” choosing to wear the Burka). - Well, - it should be clear by now to everyone, that I really do dislike moral relativism, and I think Europeans in particular are shying away from saying the obvious, at least in my view, that Western, secular, democratic values /human rights are far superior to.. you know what I mean to say..

Does that amount to putting oneself on some pedestal ? - The answer is YES, but can anyone tell me how it is possible to avoid that ? - save being a postmodernist in the worst sense of the word, i.e. “any value-system is as good as any other”, and shame on anyone who dare say otherwise..

@Peter

Just a quick comment: It should not come as a surprise to you that I advocate individual freedoms on the one hand and support state intervention / authoritarianism on the other, since just this combination is typical of a European (social)liberal like myself.

So you rate yourself a 2 on the authoritarian scale.. - That’s odd / interesting - in view of what I suggested - since I would rate myself 3-4..

@Giulio I stand corrected.

@CygnusX1

“The PC was restricted by laws of PC…” I like!!!

But still…....“governments want nothing better than to restrict freedoms, demonstrations, representations, and political rhetoric, under the guise of laws of necessity”. Sorry, but that’s BS. You just can’t make sweeping statements like that. Governments are not monolithic entities, especially not in democratic states, and even in the Chinese Communist Party there are those who seek to promote “global values” and democratisation (spare a new year wish for them by the way: the year of the dragon has just begun, a year of auspicious transformation!). There are plenty in government who want just the opposite.

I’m not necessarily saying that we should be “applying yet more liberal laws and restrictions” than we already have. Perhaps we should repeal some of them. Perhaps we should just get more intelligent about *how* we apply them. But I will not cheer people who trumpet free speech as if it’s the Golden Rule itself, or who constantly insinuate that anyone who wishes to take a more nuanced view is secretly harbouring “authoritarian” motives. Frankly, it’s insulting.

The truth is that sometimes rationality is the right approach, sometimes ignoring and dismissing, and sometimes…sorry, I’m going to say it again…the authoritarian stick.

Perhaps what would help to make this debate more concrete is if we consider the actual laws and sanctions we have now in various countries and ask ourselves: which countries have the better approaches? Which aspects would we like to see change? To what extent do the laws need to be changed, and to what extent do they just need to be implemented more wisely? This will help us to move from a battle of extremisms towards more practical guidance about the direction we should be moving. Also: what does this have to do with emerging technologies? How do they change the challenge? Do they make it more urgent to defend free speech, or to reduce hate speech?

Guilo, “That is why I don’t support laws against words: words don’t hurt, if you don’t let them hurt.” - I think this is a bit naive.  Reread what I say about ongoing insult. 

Correct, Peg, one cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater, as the old saw goes, and, Yes, libertarians tend to be naive, also Christians, and those I’m most familiar with: futurists, plus others, many others—whether Christians who do not comprehend how Nietzche’s “will to power” is more important, and will remain more important, than “forgive thine enemy”; or libertarians who don’t know-or choose to ignore- that power is more important to everyone, whether prole or sovereign, than freedom.
Freedom is a distant second to power—and it will be so for decades; at least three decades IMO.

” ‘re ‘1. Pedophiles spreading child abuse images via the internet’

Jail them, throw the keys away.”

Above, Giulio demonstrates he has doubts concerning libertarianism; doesn’t matter that he is saying children are not adults and should be protected, because child porn is not usually violent. What it comes down to is: parents have the legal right to make decisions concerning such statutes as are enforced on the Web, and parents’ rights trump civil libertarian rights and privileges. We could go on, however it can be expressed as ‘parents vote’—and they vote for those who support parents’ agendas.
Again, it is about whose ox is gored, no pun intended.

@Joern re “I do know, that most Burka-wearing women insist it is their personal choice, - it’s just that I can in no way take that seriously”

You think you know what others want better than they know themselves? Pardon me, but I find this elitist, paternalist, and, yes, colonialist.

I think our Western culture has developed some great things, but I don’t think it is intrinsically superior to other cultures.

@Peg re “I think this is a bit naive. Reread what I say about ongoing insult. “

As you say, “Are we talking about a little embarrassment or debilitating humiliation?” If somebody intentionally and repeatedly inflicts crippling verbal humiliation on a subordinate who cannot protect her/himself, I agree that the law should intervene. All I am saying is that this should not be the rule, but an exception reserved for very serious, personal cases.

Otherwise, what happens is that, as you also say, those who say they don’t believe in God can be punished because they cause severe mental harm to believers. Remember, some bigots feel really offended by gay marriage, but this does not mean that we should stop advocating gay marriage.

Is Joern is being “elitist, paternalistic, and, yes, colonialist” in doubting whether a woman who says she’s wearing a Burka out of personal choice is really doing so? No. To do so is rather to draw a correct inference from reams of empirical data concerning self-delusion. I would rather say that “I can I no way take that seriously” is a an overstatement, which perhaps indeed reflects some kind of lingering colonilaist attitude. But it has been a long time since I have assumed that such self-perceptions are trustworthy. I just know too much psychology.

On the issue of putting ourselves on pedestals, I also basically agree with Joern: either we give up on stating clear moral opinions at all, or we are inevitably, in some sense, putting ourselves on pedestals.

That says, I share your Goulio’s (apparent) perception that Joern’s position with regard to such Islamic memes is a tad one-dimensional. Even if one doubts that wearing a Burka is a personal choice whenever the wearer says it is, we should not entirely ignore such claims either. Again this comes back to the issue so listening politely to people we suspect are talking complete bollocks. Firstly it is good to have our own beliefs challenged, especially the ones we are least inclined to question, and secondly we will always learn *something* valuable.

@Joern/Peter re moral pedestals:

We (“the West”) have killed more people than all other cultures combined. This _fact_ should make us strongly doubt the solidity of our moral pedestals.

@Giulio I think we can do better than that. We can try to understand *why* the West has killed more people than all other cultures combined. Samuel Huntington put it well: “Western civilisation is only superior to other cultures in its capacity to organise violence.” I don’t actually agree with that: it’s superior in all sorts of ways, and inferior in others. But that’s the essential reason, isn’t it: we killed more people (and perhaps more to the point, brutalised communities and civilisations and cause immense human suffering in the process) because we could.

And the main lesson I draw from that: that we should be VERY cautious in response to calls to have “more faith in our fellow human beings”. And, of course, that we should listen politely to people we disagree with, even when we find their views absolutely offensive.

@Peter - this is a related but different point. Yes, we have done bad things because we could, and perhaps other cultures would have done the same in our place.

But the _fact_ remains that we have done a lot of bad things, and this fact should be sufficient to cast strong doubts on our alleged “moral superiority.” I don’t consider the Inquisition, the destruction of Native Americans, the Holocaust, or the gulags, as signs of moral superiority. Quite the contrary.

@Intomorrow re “Giulio demonstrates he has doubts concerning libertarianism”

Of course I do, I am not a libertarian. I accept that, in some extreme cases, we must limit the freedom of some people to protect other people. Yet, I insist that coercive limitation a person’s freedom must be the exception rather than the rule, done only when there is no other workable way to protect others, and always consider as a necessary evil.

@Giulio Who’s alleging that the West is morally superior? What does that even mean?

@Peter re “Who’s alleging that the West is morally superior? What does that even mean?”

Joern said: “in my view, that Western, secular, democratic values /human rights are far superior to.. you know what I mean to say”

@Giulio Right, yes. Joern’s pedestal.

Joern asked: “Can anyone the me how it is possible to avoid [putting oneself on some pedestal] - save being a postmodernist in the worst sense of the word, i.e. “any value-system is as good as any other”, and shame on anyone who dare say otherwise…”

It’s a good question. My own compromise is to style myself as both a moral subjectivist - which means I regard morality as a matter of choice, not of truth - and a utilitarian - which is to say that my preferred choice of ethical framework is utilitarianism. I don’t claim that this is “true” where other moral systems are “false”, and if I claim it is “better”, then I am arguing from within that very framework, so in effect I’m claiming little more than that my commitment to utilitarianism is logically coherent.

So I can imagine being attacked from both sides by now: for Giulio, perhaps that is putting myself on too much of a pedestal (but I doubt you think that); for Joern, perhaps it’s still too wishy-washy. I should just say utilitarianism is better, and have done with it.

I was asked over lunch yesterday what advantage I thought my moral subjectivism brought me, and my reply was that it absolved me of having to prove the truth of my moral positions. This doesn’t mean that my moral positions on specific issues are mere aesthetic preferences: I try to make them logically consistent with my overall utilitarian framework. But the latter IS an aesthetic preference, and I defy anyone to convince me that it is more (or less).

So where do Western, secular, democratic values and human rights fit into all this? Well first, let’s stop calling them “Western”. That they emerged, in more or less their current (not very coherent and certainly not consistently applied) form in the West is neither here nor there, any more than it is significant that utilitarianism emerged in England. If we want non-Westerners to embrace those values, the last thing we should be doing is referring to them as “Western”.

Then, if you are as attracted by utilitarianism as I am (and if not, I remain curious to know why), then I suggest that it’s best to see those things as “rules” in a rule utilitarian context. And please, this does not mean “rule” in the (authoritarian) sense of “rule of law”, it means “rule” in the sense of “guiding principle that you follow so you don’t have to do a cost-benefit analysis every time you go to the toilet”.

They are then superior, within this utilitarian framework, to other cultural memes to the extent that they are conducive to maximising overall welfare. Which, on the whole, I think they are.

Peter, you said it. “Truths” are aesthetic preferences.

And what is wrong with this? Beauty is Truth, or at least it should be. Let’s make beautiful things true. Of course “beautiful” is a subjective judgment, but I see this as a feature rather than a bug. If enough people find something beautiful (like the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, and the civil right movement in the 20th), they will find a way to make it come true.

Re “If we want non-Westerners to embrace those values, the last thing we should be doing is referring to them as “Western”” - VERY well said.

@Giulio Well, I didn’t say “truths” are aesthetic preferences: I said our choice of ethical framework is. And if beauty was truth, then why we’re so many people seduced by Lema Riefenstahl’s beautiful films and the intoxicating Nazi rallies she heed to design and choreograph? Roger Penrose makes some (IMO) very astute observations about the relationship between truth and beauty at the end of his Road to Reality. We all use the latter as a guide in our search for the former, but it can also be treacherous.

I don’t know about you, but I really don’t feel like I have a choice as to whether the earth is flat or round. Whatever I believe or say about it, it is. Whereas morality seems different. The concepts exist, in a Platonic sense, but which ones we choose to adopt as our moral compass: that really does seem to be a free choice. The consequences will be differently course, but they will not confirm or refute our (fundamental) moral choices (only our derived ones), in the way that flying round the world confirms that it is, indeed, round.

And Giulio, a lot of people really did find National Socialism beautiful, and tried very hard to make it come true,

Just to add to this: it seems to me that if we want to make a better world, and if we agree that by “better” we mean one in which lots of people are living well and happily, then we need to choose our moral positions and ethical frameworks according to what is most likely to achieve this, rather than which ones we happen to find more “beautiful”. This is still, at root, an aesthetic choice - we might decide we’re not that bothered about making a better world, or have a different idea of what that means - but what follows is not: it’s logic, and science (which some of us might find beautiful, others less so).

@Peter re “if we want to make a better world, and if we agree that by “better” we mean one in which lots of people are living well and happily”

“Well” can be quantified to a certain extent (enough food, water, fun, a place to live…), but “happily”? As you noted, some people would be very happy under National Socialism. And we are back to square one of aesthetic preferences…

Giulio happiness can and is quantified. There are a number of indexes of happiness. (http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/ is one.) My favourite is very simple. It measures happiness by asking how much people are able to trust their neighbours. The higher level of trust, the higher level of happiness.

@Alex - I know people who are happy only if they can abuse and brutalize [insert an ethnic/lifestyle minority here] and if they can see them beaten by the police in the evening news.

My point? It is simple: there is no objective way to quantify good or bad, right or wrong, true or false, beautiful or ugly.

This does not mean that we should not try for good, right, true, and beautiful. I don’t think “good” can be defined objectively, but I try to be a good person. It can be harder without a short definition that fits on a t-shirt, but we can try.

@Alex I don’t think Giulio’s point can be dismissed quite so simply. And your favourite measure of happiness looks like a conflation: surely it’s possible to feel completely able to trust your neighbours and still be miserable (e.g. for genetic reasons), and conversely to be cheerfully and totally distrustful of those miscreants.

Indeed, the point about people living happily under National Socialism is probably one of the most serious challenges to my own aesthetic love affair with utilitarianism, for indeed, it is difficult to disprove that if we eliminated a certain percentage of the global population (I won’t bother to name potential scapegoats, we can all imagine them) then the rest of us (you?) would be so much happier that the overall sum of happiness would be greater. What’s worse, those unfortunates do not even have to be bad or guilty. Just as if you think a habit is bad it may be better to root it out, even of objectively speaking it’s quite harmless, once people have decided they hate a specific segment of the population they may indeed be better off without such a segment.

So here I am, having an aesthetic reaction to the idea of genocide in the absence of a clear-cut utilitarian *proof* (we can invent all sorts off plausible arguments, of course) that it’s a bad idea (from a utilitarian perspective).

And yet, and yet…......those arguments really are *very* plausible. If we even allow the possibility that, theoretically, genocide might be a good idea from a utilitarian perspective, then we will all be looking over our shoulders, asking who’s going to be first, and (as Bonhoeffer criticised himself for failing to ask myself in time) who’s going to be next. Really difficult to see how that can turn out well, in which case the (rule) utilitarian prescription must be: having recognised (for one nanosecond) that we don’t have a proof, let’s refrain from - perhaps even BAN - any further mention of this inconvenient truth.

And then we’re nicely back to limitations of free speech.

On which subject, and inspired by something I read in a bestseller which I shall not name for a reason that is about to become obvious: what about telling people how to make dirty bombs (and such)? Should that be banned? This is also related, of course, to the recent controversy concerning the artificially created bird flu.

By the way, one European (specifically French) law limiting free speech I find particularly problematic: if someone is found guilty of a crime in France but is then pardoned by the President, it becomes illegal to talk about it. Would everyone here agree that this law must be immediately repealed?

A key point about dirty bombs being that just telling people how it’s done isn’t strictly speaking, “incitement”. But the effect might be similar.

(And by the way I meant “himself”: I didn’t actually intend to claim that I AM Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in some reincarnated form. Fun idea though.)

@everyone

..been *occupied*, so hasten to comment on a few things..

Giulio, - I understand why you are disgusted with my “know better” attitude, but please notice that I find it irrelevant whether or not a few Burka-wearing women in our part of the world have made that choice freely, out of defience or for whatever reason. It is not about those few, but about the entire Muslim female population anywhere ! - and I’m curious to know: Do any of you disagree with the assesment:“The wearing of the Burka is but the tip of an iceberg of oppression” ? - There you have it: Call it a lifestyle if you wish, but you are going to have a really hard time convincing anyone, save X percentage of Muslims themselves, that the Burka is not an instrument of oppression. So like it or not: the Burka represents the front in the socalled “clash of civilizations”, i.e. clash of values… , and as such it has enormous symbolic value, far beyond “lifestyle”. - Still, - I AM having scruples with this one, and I do think you have some.. (10 %..) chances of winning me over to your…shall we say.. more *progressive* views.. ?%^~ : )

Peter, - I love this: “No. To do so is rather to draw a correct inference from reams of empirical data concerning self-delusion” - Thanks for coming to my rescue { ; - )

On “colonialism”:
Here lies the main psychological reason behind modern-day left-wing.. self-delusion.. concerning VALUES, i.e. why mainly European “progressives” are afraid of calling a spade a spade and are more reluctant to favour one value-system over another, I am very much aware of that. I am NOT, however, a “colonialist” in the oldfashioned, fascist manner ! - All I am saying is that I consider the *Universal* Declaration of Human Rights to be FAR superior to ANY religious belief-system, corrupt Dictatorship and what have we. Again, - do ANY of you actually disagree with that ? - I’m pretty sure the answer is a resounding NO ! - We can talk forever about past atrocities, - that does not change the “fact” that the *Western* world has moved far beyond that. I know of course that many disagree, and certainly X percentage - (60-70..) - of Muslims in the Arab world do, - but it is MY opinion, and I find all this talk about words rather tiresome.. - it smells of Orwellian Newspeak! - I recognize it is all very well-meant on your part, but someone made an important point earlier: It is not about which words you use, but HOW you get your message across, i.e. do we speak agressively = communication breakdown, or do we speak with empathy = constructive dialogue..

Two more things:

1. I do NOT think of “Westerners” as INTRINSICALLY superior to other cultures, but I do think of the Western world as superior in THIS day and age, in terms of Human Rights, etc. etc.

2. By the same token, I don’t think *we” are MORALLY superior, but I do think that, say, atheists are generally morally superior.. - Yep, - you heard me, - (now come to my rescue too, Hank.. : )

Nice day, everyone !

intrinsically superior to other cultures.

Joern, the burka is a piece of tissue that can be worn on the face. It is often blue, but it can have nice colors and decorations as well. Western ladies often wear a similar thing called “foulard”. What? That it covers the whole face? How outrageous! But when it is very cold I use to wear a wool hat that covers all my face.

Re “I do think of the Western world as superior in THIS day and age, in terms of Human Rights.”

Go say that to the people at Guantanamo.

@Joern, continued, re “I do think that, say, atheists are generally morally superior”

Go say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of believers who have been tortured and murdered in gulags by State Atheist regimes (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism) for the sole crime of going to church. I can introduce you to people who can tell you their memories of historical _facts_ about the “superior morality of atheists”.

I think the issue is that the concept of happiness is being used in many different ways. To mean contentedness with one’s situation. To mean the satisfaction at getting one’s own way. To mean the circumstantial happiness that comes from getting new stuff, etc, etc.

A better term might be well being. A person can have a chronic illness and still experience a sense of well being.

I know the measure of trust isn’t perfect, but it is something to give us a starting point.

Colonialism is still rampant in our world. Every time we tell another culture or nation what to do because we know it is better for them we are re-colonizing them. We are so smug in our superiority that we don’t even recognize that we are doing this.

Burkha’s are a great example. The West ‘knows’ that burkha’s are bad. We ‘know’ that most women who wear them are forced to do so. We ‘know’ this in spite of a complete lack of any thing like a scientific study to determine it. And while there are women who are forced there are women who choose. If we ban the burkha’s we are as bad as the people who force women to wear them.

Responsibility is about dealing with our own lives and letting others deal with theirs.

Guantanamo sucks, yes, but one anomaly does not a convincing case make. What I think we can say, though, is that with our beautiful Western values comes some very ugly Western hypocrisy. And it was the same when we were Christians. As Desmond Tutu put it: “When the white man came to Africa the whites had the Bible and the blacks had the land. Then everyone was asked to shut their eyes for five minutes. When they opened them, the blacks had the Bible and the whites had the land.”

In a similar way, the gulags can be seen as a case of hypocrisy associated with beautiful Western ideas, the idea in question this time being communism. “Everybody gives what they can and takes what they need” was supposed to be the principle, just like in a stone age community…but human nature (when released from such communities) is not so easily repressed.

So I would indeed be very cautious about any claims of any kind of (non-trivial) superiority of the West, so bad are we at actually implementing our much-trumpeted values. But we can still be proud of the values themselves,, even if we are ashamed of much else.

@Alex Do we “know” that Burkhas are bad? No, I wouldn’t go that far. But I would also respond to Joern’s question, “Do any of you disagree with the assessment: “The wearing of the Burkha is but the tip of an iceberg of oppression”?” with a resounding, “No, I wouldn’t!” What kind of scientific studies do you need Alex? And why are you so sure that there aren’t any? If you live in a country where a woman can be stoned to death for the crime of being raped, will you necessarily wait to be directly “forced” to fall in with the local cultural norms? And if not, does that constitute “free choice” as we would understand it?

So frankly, in spirit I’m with Joern. He perhaps overstates his case somewhat, but I think his anger and disgust is - from a utilitarian perspective - fully justified. It is righteous.

Responsibility is not only about dealing with our own lives and letting others deal with theirs Alex. It is also about stepping in to support the weak, whether they be Moslem (or other) victims of Western aggression and hypocrisy, or female (or non-Moslem, or would-be non-Moslems) victims of…well, hateful interpretations of scripture. Or, for that matter, gay (or would-be gay) victims of the same. Like Joern says: we need to be prepared to call a spade a spade, without fear.

Agreed that we need to be ready to intervene, but we need to intervene in a way that doesn’t substitute one set of oppressive ideas for another. The most effective way of intervention does not involve legislation or war. It is education. The more educated a people become the more likely they are to look critically at an oppressive culture and begin changing it. Yes it is not a simple or safe thing, but it is possible and it means that what replaces the oppressive culture is not a poor copy of western ideas, but their own culture and ideals.

We as a culture want to push our “superior” ideas onto other cultures because it is more comfortable for us than interacting with a culture that is different but equal to ours.

@Giulio

Think you are confusing the body-enveloping Burka with the Nicab, a head-veil, - but let’s not be pedantic.. : )

- and confusing Communist with atheist.. - Atheism is not some fundamentalist ideology, - communism is. And speaking of which words to use, I think just that terminology, - “fundamentalist ideology” is better that atheism versus religion.., so I’ll have to correct myself: words ARE important !

Guantanamo: Well, again Peter expressed it beautifully: “one anomaly does not a convincing case make” - Thanks - again - Peter !

Ps. In Denmark a lot of muslim women are suffering from D-vitamin deficiency, because of the ENVELOPING Burka. You don’t often see them on the beach either, - I am talking of course of those most repressed, the ones who are not learning our language, etc.

@Alex It’s a bit difficult to get educated if the punishment for going to school is disfigurement.

Peter you are right, but the threat of violence only works as long as the majority are willing to be ruled by it. The challenge is to keep your non-authoritative impulses for people other than yourself. You don’t want hate laws and limits to free speech, yet you appear ready to intervene and become authoritative in someone else’s culture and tell them how to get it right. You can’t have it both ways. Yes non-interference means that people will get hurt, but people are already getting hurt. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed thousand of non-combatants.

It may be a problem, but it isn’t OUR problem unless you plan to become a benevolent nanny to the world.

“Of course I do, I am not a libertarian. I accept that, in some extreme cases, we must limit the freedom of some people to protect other people. Yet, I insist that coercive limitation a person’s freedom must be the exception rather than the rule, done only when there is no other workable way to protect others, and always consider as a necessary evil.”

In other words, state monopoly violence must be utilized sparingly. However you wrote “jail them, throw away the key.”:
you want to jail all Russians (and others) who do cp? what about Japanese who do 3d cp? jail them, too?
I’m not exactly a devotee of details, but you have to write more than merely “jail them, throw away the key”, because it appears you are being draconian for effect—posturing as a ‘law and order’ guy.
Or take as a random example those who want to ‘control’ the border; there is a way to do so yet as far as far I know only by shooting those undocumenteds who cross the border—another draconian measure.

@Intomorrow, I can be many things, but certainly not a ‘law and order’ guy. I am usually a ‘live and let live’ guy, and a radical one at that. I make some exceptions for _very_ hateful crimes against innocent victims unable to protect themselves.

Alex, I think you need to read other people’s comments a bit more carefully. I have been arguing fairly consistently here that we *do*, in some cases, need hate laws and limits to free speech. And it is up to us what we choose to make “our” problem. If people getting hurt in faraway countries isn’t your problem, then where *do* you draw the line?

I think this blog is one of the best discussion spaces on the net, and it is good to know that I can always take a break and come here for very stimulating (and often fun) discussions.

I have decided, though, to stop reading and replying to all “mine-is-bigger-then-yours” discussions like:
- The Western civilization is better than others;
- The Western civilization is worse than others;
- Women are better than men;
- Men are better than women;
- Atheists are better than believers;
- Believers are better than atheists;
- and similar.

My position is clear I think. Take a large sample of persons in any group, and you will find similar distributions of saints, assholes, and every shade of grey in between. And this is really all that I have to say on mine-is-bigger-than-yours.

@Giulio What about “these values are better than those values” or “these cultural norms/memes are better than those cultural norms/memes”? Are you still willing to engage in that type of discussion?

Because I agree, pissing contests between groups of people, while fun up to a point, beyond that point becomes counter-productive and destructive. But pissing contests between ideologies strike me as highly instructive (as well as being great fun…but that, of course, is *entirely* subjective).

“Atheism is better than theistic religion” (or vice versa) does not equate to “atheists are better than believers” (or vice versa).

@Peter re “Are you still willing to engage in that type of discussion? [these values are better than those values | these cultural norms/memes are better than those cultural norms/memes]”

No. I am willing to engage in this type of discussion: On the basis of [FACT], [value | norm/ meme] seem more useful than [value | norm/ meme] as far as [PRACTICAL APPLICATION] is concerned.

That works for me, Giulio, with one quibble: facts can themselves be treacherous. Lies, damned lies and statistics, and all that. Alongside “fact[oid]s” we also need arguments, and the kind of arguments I’m most interested in are ones I haven’t heard before. I’m interested in (reliable and relevant) facts as well, of course.

@Peter re “we also need arguments”

I agree, but an argument must be backed by facts. Most mine-is-bigger-than-yours “arguments” say little more than “I belong to group X, and therefore I think group X is superior to the others.” One minute<> on Google is usually sufficient to disprove, <b>with facts, the alleged superiority of group X.

@Peter re “we also need arguments”

I agree, but an argument must be backed by facts. Most mine-is-bigger-than-yours “arguments” say little more than “I belong to group X, and therefore I think group X is superior to the others.” One minute on Google is usually sufficient to disprove, with facts, the alleged superiority of group X.

No Giulio, they don’t disprove anything of the sort. What they (generally) do is provide anecdotal evidence. And we all know how cautious we need to be about anecdotal evidence. An argument does not need to be backed up by fact(oid)s for me to find it interesting. It just has to be new. Read David Deutsch on the subject. What we are looking for is good explanations, and these are in the first place a result of creative thinking (i.e. fresh arguments). Facts can then be used (cautiously) to test the resulting hypotheses, but without new arguments we just have stale ideas and reams of inconclusive data.

Sorry if I’m being a pain in the neck here, but is this not an Institute of ETHICS ? - It follows, therefore, that we should / MUST analyze and debate which “system”, society, faith, politics, technology, etc. etc. best serves ethical behaviors, and which ethical behaviors best serves.. etc. - This is no pissing contest, and in my perception, nothing anyone has said in this thread should be seen as such, - I think that is unfair and a misjudgment.

I more than welcome *facts”, - the more the better, I totally agree with that, but when Giulio says that “One minute on Google is usually sufficient to disprove, with facts, the alleged superiority of group X”, I would swop DISprove for prove.. , - not for the sake of “winning” some pissing contest, for for the sake of the future of Humanity, no less, -  but OK, enough for now…

OK guys, whatever you like. Then let’s say that I will not play mine-is-bigger-then-yours because I find it boring. Have fun, and see you in other discussions.

re “we also need arguments” and re “reasonable speech laws” - reminded me of another piece i’d written a while ago…titled “Better than Speech Codes”

Instead of prohibiting ‘hate speech’, we should just prohibit all claims made without reasons.

Oh how our society would change!  If we were legally compelled to provide reasons, justifications, evidence, for every claim we made in public… 

No exemptions for politicians –  every speech, every statement to the press…

No exemptions for business –  every ad, my god, that one alone gives one pause…

Go ahead.  Say whatever you think.  But only if you also say why you think it. 

How ridiculous most of us would sound most of the time.  Our almost complete dependence on immature appeals to emotion, our thin and pathetic appeals to custom, tradition, past practice majorities, questionable authorities – all exposed by expression.  How silent we would suddenly fall after the unwarranted, self-righteous ‘because – ’  How quickly we would just shut up.

“I make some exceptions for _very_ hateful crimes against innocent victims unable to protect themselves.”

Giulio, there wouldn’t be enough jails and prisons to hold such perpetrators

“Women are better than men”

There is some validity to this:
more civilized
more honest
a little smarter
better looking
live slightly longer.

Don’t necessarily dismiss an assumption.

PS,
overlooked these:
“the violent person is the one who commits violence! No other person!!! All else is subjective..”
Not convinced on this (albeit such is surely valid to a degree), there are degrees of provocation. One can’t go to a black funeral (yes, this will be gauche) and say:
“the deceased was a [n-word]!”, and not expect to be assaulted;
or say at a Jewish funeral:
“Himmler was right!”;
one can’t go to a Kindergarten to say:
“I’d like to molest these kids.”
Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is pretty obviously, ethics aside, one way to obtain a severe beating.
@Joern, I know you have better things to do than repeal Holocaust Denial statutes; besides, perhaps in Europe such laws are proper.. after all, Europe was where the Holocaust occurred. At any rate, in America such laws wouldn’t be practical. To this day there are countless monuments in the South honoring the Confederacy; it is rather tolerant of blacks to tolerate the monuments, because a statue of Jodl would be none too popular in Europe—while Robert E. Lee’s statue is all over Dixie.
I try not to make too much sense out of things anymore.. for making too much sense doesn’t make sense.

Next entry: Solar Power from the Moon

Previous entry: When Robotic Warfare Goes Wrong - Do We Need New Rules of Combat?