Free to be – Offensive

Good questions, and I broadly share the same answers. I do think there has to be a standard of respectful discourse, which will vary depending on the context. And one can always do better than “You are / Dick is an idiot”. What is an idiot anyway? One can always be more precise than that. But I agree that we must not let unreasonable beliefs determine our standards. If I am criticising you then I need to make sure that I am cautious, precise, and appropriately respectful in the way I express my criticisms (I say “appropriately” because one can also err by showing excessive respect). Ditto if I am criticising something that I know is dear to you, such as your religious beliefs. There should also be some kind of constructive purpose behind my criticism: we should not criticise just for the sake of it, even of we are right. But of those criteria are fulfilled and you still take offence, then that is your problem and must be seen as your problem.

I think this is not about “right” or “wrong,” but about (admittedly old-fashioned) good manners, and practical consequences.

I would never call anyone an idiot without provocation (of course if you call me an idiot, I will call you something much worse). First, it is unnecessarily rude and there are always better, more specific and less offensive ways to address a problem. Second, calling people idiot does not motivate them to push harder to achieve a goal. Third, there is always a possibility that the “idiot” is right and you are wrong.

We can’t expect youth to not be offensive: it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the majority of young men are well-nigh supposed to be offensive.
All day, and during the waking hours of night, young guys today are acting out, saying many “offensive” things, including sh*t, d***, c***, and of course, ass—everything is “ass.”
“You’ll break your ass”; “I’ll whip your ass”.
Naturally, it has always been that way, yet now it is out in the open. In the past it was considered offensive; today offensiveness may not be exactly socially acceptable, but close to it. It used to be an actor/actress couldn’t swear in films.. now it is practically required; if a film is rated ‘G’, the logic is it must be a Disney flick. The concept of the anti-hero emerged before swearing on the screen did, ‘Miracle On 34th Street’ gave way to ‘Pulp Fiction’.
In pop, ‘I’m In The Mood For Love’ turned into ‘F*ck You’ by Cee Lo Green.

Technically, taboos no longer exist- we merely pretend they do for form’s sake.

... it would be mistaken to think it hasn’t always been this offensive (coarse is the word most readily coming to mind). In the ‘50s for example the level of offensiveness was as high—yet the population was lower so it appeared more benign. Then again, it would be mistaken to think the situation has improved; again, it is merely out in the open: no longer buried and sublimated.
I remember the late ‘60s as being unusually pleasant, though it wasn’t as integrated ethnically.. I remember the era as a pleasant twilight zone in which the segregation of the previous ages was fading, yet the ancien regime was still holding on.
Since then—it pretty much goes without saying—it has been in a state of flux, thus the offensiveness has crept out of hiding.

offensiveness is its own reward. Manners work better if there is an actual objective of effective communication. Only when we wield our truth well can we be assured that the other’s offense is their own. And if the other is offended, that is a perfect opportunity to extend sympathy and understanding, and to negotiate different ways of reaching an accord.

if we were to practice this within our own circles, perhaps it would eventually spread to the power centers, which would necessarily draw from the expanded pool of those advanced in the dangerous craft of speech.

I see two aspects to this issue. The first as Peg says is that we need to own our reaction to insult and offense. That means that we recognize that it bothers us, decide to what amount it bothers us, and take appropriate action.

Someone saying that I’m an idiot doesn’t bother me much. Not enough to waste the energy arguing with them. Someone who consistently calls me an idiot publicly and forcefully becomes a person that I need to deal with. My specific relationship with the person will dictate the nature of that response.

The offending person does not become responsible for their words until I, or another person informs them that they are being offensive. At that point they can choose to continue and accept whatever consequence comes their way, or they can choose to change their actions reduce offense.

It only becomes a community issue if sufficient people on either side start getting involved. In some cases there are laws or bylaws detailing behaviour. Such laws may impact the nature of the offense.
Slander and libel laws protect Dick from being called an idiot in a way that damages their reputation.

Regardless the first responsibility is on the person who is offended to articulate their offense so that the person making the offense has opportunity to change or not.

I agree with much of what Alex writes, but not with the idea that the offending person only becomes responsible when their offensiveness is pointed out. If they are two years old, sure, but there are standards of respectful discourse that I think we can reasonably expect all adults to adhere to, except in relatively extreme circumstances like extreme emotional overload, stress, sleep deprivation, abuse, grief, that kind of thing (in other words what one might describe as “extenuating circumstances”).

Of course it depends a bit on how we are using the word “responsible”. On the whole I prefer to think if responsibility as something one decides to exercise, rather than something one “has” or “doesn’t have”, and it’s especially in that sense that I agree about the need to own one’s reaction to (perceived) insult. And this is also the sense in which it seems most appropriate to use the word if it doesn’t become a “community” issue.

Come to think of it, neither do I really agree that it only becomes a community issue if several people are involved. For example, if I call an office colleague a slut because she has decided to come into work wearing a short skirt, one might well consider her justified in making that a community issue, even if the remark is made privately, not because she is supposed to be so helpless that she can’t deal with it herself but because it is an example of a behaviour pattern that needs to be changed, and is thus ALREADY a community issue. So I would nuance Alex’s position here and say that it becomes a community issue if sufficient people get involved OR it is sufficiently extreme that it needs to serve an example to deter others.

For me it comes down to domain.

In your domain, insult me all you want (but don’t be surprised if I don’t come back).

In my domain, expect to be exiled if you dare to insult me.

The only problem comes when we are sharing a public domain.

In this case, I rely upon strong reciprocation. I repay insult with insult.

If what you all mean is thoroughly unwarranted offensiveness, such is quite rare, there is virtually always a trigger. What some of you might be forgetting is in a world of wrenching dislocation, offensiveness is not merely to be expected but also necessary as a safety valve. You cannot view offensiveness in isolation; you can’t expect youths and women (merely for example), who often get the bad end of the stick, not to vent by way of being offensive. It was not unknown for Civil Rights activists and anti-war protesters to be offensive. OWS has and is considered offensive by many, yet what are they supposed to do at this time? pray and sing hymns on streetcorners? the squeaky wheel gets the grease.. unless what one wants is the status quo—then offensiveness is wrong and we can all stay home, eat milk and cookies, and watch The Guiding Light on TV. Perhaps the Arab Spring demonstrators were too offensive? the guy who started it by immolating himself was offensive, wasn’t he? Heavens to Betsy, how crude, rude, lewd and offensive to set oneself aflame, he ought to have been ticketed for disturbing the peace and littering!
Gosh, if only malcontents would just accept things the way they are and not be so offensively bolshie.

I sense some ambiguity in what Peg is saying, but I take special note of her saying:

“If we prohibit offense – my god, if every time I opened my mouth I had to be sure not to offend…….well, I wouldn’t gotten past ‘my god” ,

- so I trust that she does not advocate European-style hate-speech laws, - Allah forbid..

Freedom-loving Europeans -(maybe about one half of us..) look to America with envy when it comes to Freedom of Expression. Your First Amendment assures you the right to free speech, good AND BAD ! - save incitement to violence, and let’s keep it that way, shall we..

I hear that, in Arizona, Bill 2549, designed to fight cyber bullying, was passed earlier this month and is now awaiting Governor Jan Brewer’s signature. The Bill states:

“It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.”

What Idiots (…) – even if with hearts in the right place and with the best of intentions, - (I suspect it is a reaction to, and a precaution against recent school-massacres) came up with that ?! – Are they unaware of their own First Amendment ? – or is it their intent to walk the slippery slope towards full-blown US censorship..

As for you commenters.. well, - I am a little worried.. (but not about you, Intomorrow { ; - )

There is no doubt whatsoever, that you all have your hearts in the right place as well,  - you have the best of intentions, and your know your (good) manners, but.. I see one major problem with all of your pointed fingers, your moralizing, and I will tell you in a minute.

Peter says (potential) “offenders” should be “cautious, precise, and appropriately respectful”, - Giulio talks about being “unnecessarily rude”, -Mnashp advices us to “wield our truth well”.

Here comes the problematic part: What right has any of you to be the judge of what and when someone is >appropriately< respectful, - when an “offender” is >unnecessarily< rude, or when our “truths” are well-wielded ?

Say I am of the opinion that - at the end of the day - “rudeness” is far more constructive than socalled “peacefull, respectfull dialogue..

In Saudia Arabia of course, they have “The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice”…

As for you, Pastor_Alex, - don’t get me wrong, - I know you are a good man, but what if, theoretically speaking, I told you – as an atheist – that I find your “religulous” utterings deeply offensive, giving you the opportunity to change.. ,and you refused.. – would that make you guilty of an “offense”, that could perhaps be punishable, say, if that Arizona bill had overruled the First Amendment..

Forgive me for being slightly silly here, - it is meant as food for thought only..

One could make a case for offensiveness building this world*; am not familiar with other nations, so can merely write the men who built this country committed genocide against the natives, were offensive in every way, and to this day America is as in-your-face as one could ever want. I don’t like it at all, but when you are in Rome you do as the Romans do. Funny how in the ‘50s cowboy movies and TV programs were extremely popular, though the real-life gunslingers of eighty or so years before then were offensive to the point their real lives were unfilmable: they used every cussword under the Sun, frequented cathouses. It’s fascinating how history is so skewed from reality (history is in fact the lie that is commonly agreed upon). Americans are prim one day, the next they go to a gangster flick where Joe Pesci says f*ck a hundred times while Robert De Niro is kicking someone in the head.
Who could say with a straight face consistency of behavior exists?
However ‘bots are a cause for optimism: they can be programmed to be as unoffensive as possible.

*someone was saying today how meat is unhealthy, and I had to agree, as the only meat which tastes really good IMO is charcoal-cooked (burnt) steak—a good non-burned vegesteak tastes far superior. Yet it is true the people who built this world ate meat, they killed many people as well as animals, they were as offensive as they could get away with being.. the echoes of that offensiveness still ring strong today.

Joern, if I wandered into your space, or indeed into public space and proselytized it would be offensive, though even in the act you cite it would not be illegal since the intent is to save your immortal soul. <- heavy sarcasm here. Even as a Christian I find public proselytizing offensive. I don’t think that’s what we should be about, but that’s off the topic.

Context is very important. If you wander into my church and are offended by my religious utterings, I will give you no sympathy, though I might invite you to join me for coffee. If you walk into my church the next Sunday and demand I stop preaching my offensive religious doctrines. I would refuse. Unless I am preaching harm against others, I have the right to my beliefs as you have the right to yours.

Offense is only when I use my beliefs to justify harm to to prevent you from believing as you would.

Thus simply saying that you are offended by religion is not enough to justify the eradication of religion. Nor is religious people being offended by folks who don’t want to be married reason enough to force them to marry.

Peter, in regards to telling people of their offense, at some point at some time in a person’s life they are taught some basic information about what is offensive. Now a lot of people are taught different things so you can’t assume that there is some universal line in the sand that can’t be crossed. Many of the scandals around offensiveness have arisen not so much from ignorance, but from the fact that a new line was drawn without much warning.

“Many of the scandals around offensiveness have arisen not so much from ignorance, but from the fact that a new line was drawn without much warning.”

Or any warning- Homeland Security doesn’t issue offensiveness alerts. IMO a guy compensates by being offensive: violence lite. If a violent person can’t be violent, he turns to coercion;
if coercion doesn’t work, he turns to power;
if power doesn’t work, he turns to manipulation;
if manipulation doesn’t work, he turns to offensiveness.
(and btw, when I write “miscreants”, that does not mean rowdies drinking beer and puking in front of the TV; it means the violent- types)

“It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.”

Well perhaps this is going too far.. I would say that it “should” be unlawful to terrify, intimidate, threaten, as indeed it is with laws as non-electronic, the medium used makes no difference..

The rest of the paragraph I would say is more than fair, it is rational..

@ Joern,  you forget that there is now a culture, (at least in the UK), of minors using mobile text messages and picture messages to intimidate, bully, harass, terrify, threaten, sexual abuse, demoralise, and subjugate. There are rife gang culture networks using the same means and media to organize gang warfare, attacks on victims, shootings, stabbings, and instigate “gang rape” of young girls - this is the reality, right here, right now!

Kids have committed suicide because of continued harassment, humiliation and bullying by use of mobile and electronic messaging, and including the use of Youtube and Facebook.

We here are adults, and are thus not so susceptible to bullying and intimidation. We know our rights, and are not afraid to utilise existing laws to protect ourselves, and hopefully others. We know the difference between blatant “right” and “wrong”, know the difference between “harassment” and “bullying”, we are perceptive enough to realise when the malcontent goes too far?

Anyone that turns a blind eye, or makes exception and excuse to promote Free speech to justify such decadence, (as above), is the liberal fool. This is NOT Free speech! And it is up to those with conscience, and using their subjective morality, to then use Free speech to express and with some integrity, their concerns, and hopefully guide ethics and humanism in the “correct” direction? This means holding to the fundamental values held and expressed by the US constitution and as noted by Joern. In fact, perhaps this constitutional and Universal

” I sense some ambiguity in what Peg is saying, but I take special note of her saying: “

I sense this too.

And I think we have all had this conversation before on a similar thread by Peg?

déjà vu anyone?

@ Peg.. and let me ask you this with all sincerity and respect. What you say here rings true, it is by measure of degrees and by which society converges to mould/form consensus, as to what is “now” deemed as acceptable and what is not, and as to what is “right” and what is “wrong”.

So.. how can you take offence at the use of “Mr. Mrs. Ms.”?

And I’m very glad you have chosen that most excellent picture for your article!

Because this is an excellent opportunity for “all of us” to Self-reflect and to decide whether this picture causes offence, or intimates that some social ethic(s) needs (re)evaluation here?

Is it by degrees that we measure the morality and offence caused/expressed by children and minors? How old does a child have to be for this picture to be offensive?

Is this yet another indication that humanism, that evolving human ethics is moving in the “wrong direction”? And the reason why this IS so important to reflect upon, is because we should remind ourselves that these memes are “learned” from adults, so it is “We” as adults that need to (re)evaluate the measure of decadence in society?

@ Peg.. And please finally tell us all, do you find your own chosen picture as offensive?

I ask you in all honesty. And thus provide my own opinion - Yes I find the picture offensive, and even with contemplating context, (sports match), and the atmosphere and environment, I find the child’s expression as aggressive and insulting, yet the child perhaps and most likely does not even know the real meaning of this expression, cannot “yet” even express the full measure of its emotion? Only an adult knows and teaches this meme?

 

Oh… and BTW.. and if I have not made myself absolutely clear about “freedom of speech” as discordant and unaffiliated with use and “intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass,” etc

“the king is in the altogether, the altogether, the altogether, he’s as altogether as naked as the day that he was born!” come on! sing up!

Quite a few interesting comments here, but for the moment I’m going to focus on the following question from Joern: “What right has any of you to be the judge of what and when someone is >appropriately< respectful, - when an “offender” is >unnecessarily< rude, or when our “truths” are well-wielded ?”

It’s a good question, but first of all I want to make clear that suggesting that we should be cautious, precise and appropriately respectful when making criticisms in no way implies that I regard myself as the judge of who is breaching or respecting this guideline. It reminds me of when on another thread some of us were urging Israel to be cautious in dealing with the Iran and Joern criticised us for arrogantly presuming we have the right to tell Israel what to do. The bottom line is that we all have the right, I would even say the obligation, to make constructive suggestions; it is of course up to others whether they choose to follow them or not.

That being said, if we were to agree that such a guideline is helpful and deserves to be respected generally, and especially if we agree (as I have also suggested) that extreme violations of this guideline need to be punished in some way, at least in some contexts, then the issue of who gets to decide whether a violation has occurred is of case relevant. But this is nothing remotely new. Any societal rule that we agree on that involves sanctions in case of infringement requires due process, and in the more civilised societies we have legal systems which, while by no means perfect, at least do somewhat better than kangaroo courts and mob rule. So to take my office example, obviously it would in the first instance be HR that would decide. Not me, and not the person I insulted. Obviously it has to be disinterested third party that has been given some kind of mandate to arbitrate, either by society at large or by the interested parties.

On Peg’s chosen picture:

US Supreme Court, 1971:  “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

Pastor_Alex, - I’d have coffee with you any day

You said:
“Offense is only when I use my beliefs to justify harm to prevent you from believing as you would”.

Now, it’s hard to prevent people from believing something, but I take it you mean “prevent you from expressing and / or practicing those beliefs”, and if that is your definition of offense, then I agree 100 %, except, - and this is a very, very important point, - when such practices are a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights !

Thing is, I am not terribly concerned with public morals, - which “offences” are and which are not morally acceptable, - I’d go as far as saying I don’t give a damn, - but I am terribly concerned with which “offences” should and should not be legal, and here I’d like to make myself quite clear: I am against all hate-speech laws, - only exception being incitement to violence. Thus, I would limit the proposed Arizona Bill to:

“It is unlawful for any person to threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person”,

- which would render the bill superfluous, qua the First Amendment.

CygnusX1,
- don’t you worry, - my wife is a teacher and “entertains” me every second day about what kids are doing ! – Of course the things you describe are socially unacceptable, but responsibility lies entirely with the parents, and, - in cases of child abuse and neglect – the relevant social authority.
As for gang warfare, I think “incitement to violence” covers that pretty good, and for God’s sake, let these no-brains expose themselves freely as much as possible, - it makes it a lot easier to deal with them ! – I believe, simply, that preventing people from expressing themselves is counter-productive.

Peter, - you said:

“I want to make clear that suggesting that we should be cautious, precise and appropriately respectful when making criticisms in no way implies that I regard myself as the judge of who is breaching or respecting this guideline”

Well, for my part, I have NO problem regarding MYSELF as the (moral) judge, - after all it is a basic democratic right for every man and woman to have each their opinion, and I even have no problem with imposing LEGAL guidelines either, i.e. stating one set of values is superior to another set of values. In that respect, I am very much a “fundamentalist” myself, - but, and that is the important part, - a DEMOCRATIC fundamentalist. That is why I have said elsewhere, that I don’t hesitate for a split second to say that I find the “Universal” declaration of Human Rights superior to ANY other value-system. So, again, I am not that concerned with what is morally appropriate, but deeply concerned about what is, or becomes.. Illegal.

My question is this: To which extent are you willing to use your democratic rights and personal assessments of “appropriate”, “unnessesary”, etc. in support of actual hate-speech LAWS ?

How about you all either accept mentioned Arizona Bill in full, or edit according to your liking, as I have done above, and CygnusX1 earlier. An intriguing exercise..

Joern, I’m not sure you’re going to like this response, but the only thing really wrong I see with the Arizona law is the likely difficulty in enforcing it.

Consider this: if I can reasonably demonstrate that my intent was not to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, then I can say anything. So the defence “it was intended as a joke” or “I was trying to be ironic” should be sufficient (hence the law’s uneforeability unless overinterpreted, which admittedly might be a risk). And even if I admit that such was my intend, as long as I don’t use obscene, lewd or profane language (which is perfectly easy to avoid) or suggest any lewd or lascivious act (ditto), or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person (ditto), then I am still on the right of the law. You can certainly publish as many pictures of Mohammed as you want, and provided you can reasonably claim to have had an intent (e.g. “defending free speech” or “fighting against religious superstition”) other than offence etc you can even publish lewd pictures of said prophet and/or call him all sorts of insulting names. So it’s really not a very constraining law.

By the way, do you really think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the best of all possible value systems? Hardly. In fact I think on the whole I prefer Alex’s Code of Responsibiltiy. (@Hank would it be worth reposting that at some point?)

Cygnus, I don’t take offense at Ms. and Mr.  It makes me angry and I think it’s stupid.  But I don’t really know what ‘I’m offended’ means.  That’s actually what started the piece.

And, Cygnus and Joern, the picture isn’t my choice - I think all pix are Hank’s work.  But it IS striking isn’t it!  But offensive?  Really, I don’t know what the word means.

What I find most intriguing about my analysis is that (1) unlike physical injury, one is partly responsible for one’s psychological injuries b/c one is responsible for one’s beliefs and attitudes (2) where do we draw the line?

Peter, I’ve been rethinking intent-based moralities.  Here’s my current thinking:

“They’re bloody irresponsible.  I’m giving new meaning to “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” (or maybe I’m just finally understanding it). 

“Intention-based moralities are for people too stupid or too lazy to consider the consequences of their actions.  ‘But I didn’t mean to’ is the cry of an idiot.  (What did you think would happen when you put a firecracker in the dog’s mouth?)  ‘I was only trying to help’ is an attempt to absolve oneself of the burden of figuring out the effect one’s behavior has on others.  (In what universe is that helpful?) 

“If you only meant to have a bit of fun, getting in your car drunk out of your mind and driving down the 401, if you didn’t intend to hurt anyone, well then, okay, you can go (you should go) — to hell.

“But I don’t really know what ‘I’m offended’ means.  That’s actually what started the piece.”

Yes indeed, and we must clarify..

“Pronunciation: /əˈfɛns/
(US offense)
noun
1a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act:

the new offence of obtaining property by deceptiona thing that constitutes a violation of what is judged to be right or natural: the outcome is an offence to basic justice

2 [mass noun] annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself: he made it clear he’d taken offence I didn’t intend to give offence

3 [mass noun] the action of attacking someone or something:
[as modifier]: reductions in strategic offence arsenals”

“What I find most intriguing about my analysis is that (1) unlike physical injury, one is partly responsible for one’s psychological injuries b/c one is responsible for one’s beliefs and attitudes (2) where do we draw the line?”

True, only I can permit you to offend me. If I refuse to take offence or disregard it, then effectively you cannot offend me? I will turn the other cheek, (such as with Buddha and Jesus).

However, when dealing with verbal leading to physical acts of offence - and concerning the cultural practices, code within a collective, a society - then we need to collectively come to some agreement as to what is “socially acceptable” for the sake of peace, harmony and cohesiveness..

So it is still very important to strike an accord as to the meaning of this term?

it would be nice if people could know the difference between hurt and harm, and knew to differentiate real-world offense from the fact that the world shows up contrary to one’s wishes, without even asking permission! Go figure!

if one chooses to be offended because one believes that everyone should think and behave like one believes they should, well, then the offense is one’s own, and one is welcome to it.

but if a toe is truly stepped on, then humility and compassion go a LONG way to soothe offense with integrity.

and i find it amusing that a person would get angry at another’s use of a term like ‘Ms.’

does that person really believe that they know what goes into the choice for all persons who choose it? Wow. THAT’s really doing some homework!

i guess absurdities abound, when one takes the contents of the mind too seriously. After all, it’s called the ‘imagination’ for a reason!

mnashp, check out the Ms.Mr. piece - we can continue that discussion if you have new stuff to add, but let’s do it there!

Joern, you are right, I should have said “practicing your belief” or something similar. Thanks

Peter, you’re right in that until we have a computer that will read minds and determine our intent, the law as it stands is useless. I am not concerned with intent. The reality we have to deal with is consequence. What is the measurable effect of the action? Then we look at who is responsible for what. I am responsible for my own decisions about how I react to being offended. You are responsible for your decision about how you act and speak. There is going to be conflict and that isn’t bad as long as both sides listen and respect the other.

@Peter Wicks

I’m sorry to say this, but you are absolutely right: I am VERY disappointed to hear you support the Arizona Bill. As I’m sure you know, numerous Europeans have already been on the WRONG side of such laws, and if you had your way, it is bound to become a US scenario also. Is that really what you want ? - It makes me feel a little better, that your support may be excused with your failure to see how such a law will be used /abused by all types of overly sensitive individuals or groups, including authorities and government. Even from a practical point of view - (utilitarian..), it sonds like a nightmare, and lots of people would have to spend their precious time in over-burdened courtrooms, explaining their true intents..

Think again !

Perhaps it might fly in Arizona, but how could such a bill succeed in
California? Hollywood depends today on making offensive films with potty-mouthed characters. If someone similar to Andrew Dice Clay cannot use dozens of offensive words and gestures then the actors and actresses will no longer be merely anorexic—they will starve.
Middle Americans want to live fairly prim lives, but when they watch films they like ‘Death Wish 23’ or ‘Die Hard 19’, they want the characters to say “@#&!*...”

@Joern
You’ll have to do that of you want me to seriously “think again” about hate speech laws. I live in Europe and I don’t feel in the least bit oppressed by them, despite being someone for whom speaking my mind is an important freedom (considerably more so, I would guess, than it is for most people). So where exactly is this nightmare of over-burdened court-rooms that you predict for the US? Court-rooms (and prisons) are overburdened, for sure, but not (as far as I’m aware) because of hate speech laws.

@Peg
I don’t think I’ve emphasised intention particularly in the position I’ve taken on your article. However it is a well-established criterion in law (cf murder vs manslaughter, fraud or assault vs negligence). Are you saying this should be changed? As you know I’m also a consequentialist as far as my preferred ethical framework is concerned (utilitarianism being an example of a consequentialist moral philosophy), but this does not mean intention is irrelevant. At least it suggests a different remedy or prevention strategy. The unintentionally harmful can at least be encouraged, and can perhaps reasonably be expected to be likely, to be more careful in the future. Malicious intent seems to imply a more fundamental and less tractable problem. Of course there is a discussion to be had about where the burden of proof should be held to lie with regard to intention, and what this should depend on.

Typo alert: first sentence should read “...better than that…”. Sorry!

Peter, it was your second Apr17 comment, second para, that caught my attention re intention.  I realize it’s a standard in law…and yes, I’m wondering whether it should be changed… I see the value in adding intent to consequence (its value in upping the culpability); it’s just that I (now) see the danger in replacing consequence with intent.  but this is getting us away from offense…

Re ““It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.”

Oh my. I wonder when this nanny-state thing will come to an end, or more appropriately, what should we do to end it right f## now.

If they call me an idiot in an online forum, I am perfectly capable of calling them idiots in return. I don’t need a nanny state to protect me. I prefer to be called an idiot thousands of time.

You are correct: it might succeed in Europe, Giulio, but not in America, the U.S. is too unruly.
Think about this: if a statue of Ferenc Szalasi was erected in Budapest, it wouldn’t be popular- to say the least; however in America monuments to Confederate generals, and so forth, all sorts of monuments, exist. There is no way to tame America without removing the baby with the bathwater (hope that isn’t mixing metaphors, Cygnus). BTW, Europe, considering its population density, is pretty civilised.

Hate speech laws can only succeed in civilised nations.. and America is not civilised, it is based on creative destruction, controlled barbarism. Offensiveness is part of what makes America American.

Admittedly, I’m not aware of any restrictions on free speech in Europe that are that draconian: they generally cover things like incitement to violence or racial hatred, or specifics such as holocaust denial. As I said before, I do have concerns about the enforceability of the Arizona law. But hey, let’s regard it as a pilot and see what happens! In any case I don’t have much sympathy with assertions that it can’t possibly work or that this or that person doesn’t need the “nanny-state” to protect him or her. I don’t think I would have voted for such a law, but I find expressions of outrage over it misplaced and somewhat silly. (And please, no slippery slope arguments unless you can demonstrate that there isn’t an equal and opposite slippery slope in the other direction, e.g. towards the complete breakdown of civilised discussion. I promise to counter silly extremism with equal and opposite silly extremism.)

@Peg Just to continue our small digression , from my consequentialist perspective it’s not so much that I should want to ADD intent to consequence, let alone replace consequence with intent, it’s more that intent tells us something about the consequences both of the behaviour and of imposing sanctions or other mechanisms of social disapproval. In general I think the consequences, especially the indirect ones, are likely to be more severe when there is intent to do harm. (And it is indeed the intent criterion in the Arizona law that makes it pretty harmless from my perspective.)

Peter, counterexample to your “In general…”: climate change.

@Peg Indeed. The significance of intent is more acute in cases of repeated and repeatable behaviour. Coming back to the topic somewhat: deliberate bullying seems not only more culpable but is more weighty with harmful (direct and indirect) consequences than clumsy and inadvertent offensiveness. With climate change it’s a one-shot (no second chances) opportunity to get it right or wrong, and the important thing is indeed to get it right in practice, not merely in intention. But I think my “In general…” holds: it would be different if I had said “It is always the case that…”.

The really interesting counterexample would be one where inadvertent harm is actually worse than intended harm, even when the action and therefore the direct consequences are the same. It is certainly the case that stupidity can be more IRRITATING than malice, and perhaps the malice can at least be channelled? (For example one might decide it’s better to have that person inside the tent pissing out. It’s a strategy that often seems to work quite well, where someone who is simply feckless is often best to avoid altogether.)

Intomorrow:

You said: “Hate speech laws can only succeed in civilised nations”.. - ??? -

Try this instead: Freedom of speech is a strong indicator of a society’s progress.

Peter:

As far as I’m concerned, the LACK of freedom of expression is already a nightmare, to varying degrees in every corner of the earth, but I think you will at least admit that much..

Good for you that you don’t feel in the least bit oppressed by European hate speech laws, - less so for many others, who do not merely feel oppressed, but have de facto been convicted on the basis of these laws.

Do I need to write you a list..

Extremism / hate speech should not be fought by criminal law but through open debate. Even during WWII, Mein Kampf was not banned in the UK, - you should be proud of that, and you should be proud also, that the UK was way ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of freedom of speech in the 18th century.  – Not so any longer, sadly.. – It reflects, of course, on UK now being a multicultural society, for good and bad..

In order to state my case, I am thinking of writing my own article on freedom of speech, in which case I’d love to continue the discussion, and hopefully that will make you think again..

@Joern Very happy to continue the discussion based on your own article, and if it contains a list so much the better! I certainly agree that lack of freedom of expression is a nightmare in many parts of the world. I just don’t see banning hate speech - if it really is hate speech, of course, and not pointing out inconvenient truths or dissenting opinions - as part of that nightmare. In fact, I think it might well be part of the way on which resilient societies ensure that freedom of expression is maintained. Just as we try to eliminate biological disease, we also need to eliminate dangerous, virulent verbal memes.

I am with Joern this time. Freedom of speech is something that cannot be compressed without degenerating the whole structure of a (more or less) free society. You cannot allow certain words, and forbid other ones. This is typical of theocracies, where certain things cannot be said because they are blasphemous. Those who want to control words want also to control the most private of our everyday human interactions - this fact should never be understimated.

The only linguistic expressions that should be contrasted are those ruining someone’s reputation (that is, the “social body” of a person). That is a serious issue - and courts are already addressing that since centuries, more or less everywhere. Contemporary hate speech laws are nothing but secular inquisition mixed with democratic procedures. A mature, adult individual should be able to answer an insult with another insult, with his or her middle finger (or whatever local gesture is supposed to carry the same meaning), or simply to ignore the verbal aggressor. In the future, will we really become so spineless to require police agents to enforce our answers to everyday insults? Shouldn’t we keep at least some degree of autonomy in these matters?

If you simply express offense, what good does that do to further understanding?

If you want people to be able to understand your opinion you have to delineate your logic.

Therefore we should expect people to be clear and express themselves in a way that is conducive to discussion rather than distracting with polemics.

André,- very pleased to have your support !

Peter, - this last sentence of yours:

“.. we also need to eliminate dangerous, virulent verbal memes”,

- had me thinking about the good old days and the totalitarian regimes behind the Iron Curtain, who were highly skilled in.. eliminating “undesirable” views through systematic censorship or, if need be, the gulags…

Forgive me for being slightly provocative here, but what if I said your very own words qualify as a “dangerous, virulent verbal meme”.. , and therefore needs to be “eliminated”..

I KNOW you are a highly intelligent human being, plus - and this is important - deeply empathetic, - but you really should think this over..

Anyway, thanks for qualified opposition, and I will give you credit if I do write my own free speech article, as I had almost given up on the idea.. until now..

@André @Joern
The problem with these views is their sheer naïveté. Obviously if I say something offensive to one of you guys, or Giulio, then you are perfectly capable of responding in kind or simply ignoring me. But now suppose I incite people to exert violence or discrimination against some kind of minority group that, because of disability or simply because it is a small minority, is unable to defend itself. In which kind of absurd universe should this be allowed? What kind of fundamentalist religious zealot do you have to be in your devotion to free speech to think that such memes should be given free rein. Such faith in the free marketplace of ideas is no less naïve than blind faith in other unregulated markets.

And the totalitarian régime argument is a classic straw man, which is unworthy of a site such as this one. Obviously a totalitarian regimes will act oppressively. To say that totalitarian régimes misapply the concept of censorship and therefore any limitation on free speech must be bad is like saying that totalitarians use laws badly so we shouldn’t have laws. It’s a crap argument, and needs to be recognised as such.

One reason I feel quite strongly on this issue is that in the modern world our language instinct is massively over-stimulated, and I believe that this is causing major problems. From birth we are bathed in a sea of language, and inundated with messages and calls on our attention. It’s unhealthy, and leads to pervasive chronic stress and anxiety. There need to be much stronger sanctions against people who use language to make this worse.

Maybe I should write an article on why free speech is over-rated. And on how to spot and disactivate slippery slope and straw man arguments. It’s important in the context of emerging technologies as well, because the standard of discourse that we aim for, on sites such as this one and more generally, will influence the kind of AIs that are developed, and therefore the world that we will live in. So this is not an academic discussion.

What really needs to be protected, of course, is reasoned criticism and constructive dissent. This is what totalitarian régimes hate. We must be able to question and criticise, even rail against those in power. We must be able to state views that go against the conventional wisdom, especially when people find this shocking because that conventional wisdom is deeply ingrained. This can all be done, however, within the framework of basically respectful discourse, and protection of the weaker members of society against inflammatory and offensive discourse.

Essentially we need to wake up from our paranoid fantasies about nanny-state bureaucrats and look around us to see what is really happening. Otherwise we will simply drown in our cacophony of toxic and slanderous shouting matches.

“Try this instead: Freedom of speech is a strong indicator of a society’s progress.”

I only know America, and what Peter writes in the previous comment is valid: America does appear to drown in a cacophony of toxic and slanderous shouting matches. Unfortunately, hate speech might succeed in a small Eastern state such as Vermont, say- but in a big, growing rightist state like Arizona? the where does matter.
IMO America is somewhat free, albeit it is also quite violent, if you examine crime stats you will see. A society’s progress? first we have to echo (don’t cringe) Margaret Thatcher in writing technically—whatever technically means—society doesn’t exist: life is still too barbaric. Then we go from there to wondering where to draw the line. It is arbitrary and capricious judgment call. Returning to the where, if I were black I’d be furious at a monument of Stonewall Jackson in the South. Sure, Jackson was a professional general, but then so was Albert Kesselring- can you imagine the outrage if a statue of Kesselring were unveiled in Italy? while we’re at it, why not a monument to Oscar Dirlewanger in Warsaw? Boy that would cause quite a furore, wouldn’t it? So it always comes back to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, you want to protect some hate speech, but not, as Peter basically wrote, all. You can’t expect natives of Phnom Penh in Cambodia to not go ballistic if a pro-Khmer Rouge rally were to be attended by guys wearing black pajamas. There has to be a balance, depending on time and place, between liberty (or perhaps licence) of speech, and the need to as Pete rightly put it avoid drowning in a cacophony of toxic and slanderous shouting matches.
Many examples can be given of how if you permit excessive speech, things can spiral out of control, blood is effused, expensive police man-hours are racked up, more court dockets are filled in prosecuting hotheads who become hysterical with rage. For lurid illustrative purposes, will provide a few more examples:
if hecklers were to gather outside a white nationalist conference in Tennessee, yelling,
“Wish we could rape these honky women ‘n’ kids like the Russians did in 1945!”, technically, if at a legal distance from the conference, no genuine threat would be made, the loudmouth would merely be expressing a wish similar to a jingoist wishing “we could nuke then A-rab nations!”—which is permitted. But you know the Arabs and Shiite nations are thousands of miles away; while to protest a nearby white nationalist convention via the scenario I depicted would be inviting very real carnage. Try shouting in a black neighborhood that “Hoodie Trayvon deserved to be shot by Zimmerman”, and see what happens. Maybe the true definition of free speech is when you don’t get beaten up after speaking your mind.
Technically (that word again) I’m with Joern on this, albeit Joern lives in Scandinavia and the level of disaffection and violence-proneness is not as high there as other locations; the where again… plus it comes down to who takes the legal responsibility when arrests are made after passions rise to the assault stage, and who mops up the blood after the last ambulances have departed to hospital.

Peter, -
you are extremely well-spoken, I’ll give you that. Unfortunately, it is all based on a misreading of what I /we have been saying.

You said:
“now suppose I incite people to exert violence or discrimination against some kind of minority group that”..

I for one have specifically stated that incitement to violence is where I draw the line, period. I am not a devotee of free speech, but you could call me a Human Rights fundamentalist, - thus I have said in an earlier thread that I support a ban on the Burka, exactly because I see this “expression of >free< speech” as a violation of women’s right’s, - remember..

You then go on to say:
“To say that totalitarian régimes misapply the concept of censorship and therefore any limitation on free speech must be bad is like saying…”

Yes, but I DIDN’T say that. My message is this: It is impossible to control behavior through repression, e.g. hate speech laws. You could, however,  argue for the opposite, and do you think it is a coincidence, that countries with the highest degree of freedom of expression are also the countries with fewest extremists.. - ( Yes, I heard it before: Correlation is not causation, please come up with something better..)

Even the Weimar Republic had hate speech laws. I am quoting here from an article written by a highly educated Danish “devotee” of Human Rights / Freedom of Expression:

“One of the most vicious Jew-baiters of the era was Julius Streicher, who edited the Nazi newspaperDer Stürmer; he was twice convicted of causing “offenses against religion” with his virulently anti-Semitic speeches and writings. Hitler himself was prohibited from speaking publicly in several German jurisdictions in 1925. None of this prevented Streicher from increasing the circulation of Der Stürmer, or Hitler from assuming power. The trials and bans merely gave them publicity, with Streicher and Hitler cunningly casting themselves as victims”.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243451/censorship-tolerance-jacob-mchangama?pg=3

I highly recommend you read this article, Peter.

One last comment: You say:

“What really needs to be protected, of course, is reasoned criticism and constructive dissent”

Agreed, - but still: When is something constructive ? - Revolutions, - pretty OFFENSIVE,  wouldn’t you say.. - can be quite constructive also, eh..?

“One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyrics”..

Joern, good example, Streicher.
Here’s some spin from the hysterical Right:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/18/sharpton-should-have-been-shun

It is a comprehensive piece, unfortunately it is excessively biased towards the status quo and away from blacks. I am, as you might have guessed, ambiguous on this matter of free speech: I don’t like violence resulting from much free speech (and we shouldn’t deny such) but this is how things change. The song Revolution goes:

“.. when you talk about destruction, don’t you know that you can count me out… in”

William S. Burroughs said,

“there should be more riots and more violence.”

Now, he said so—as one can imagine—in the ‘60s, but it sadly holds true for today. And the past is apparent for all who want to see: blacks would still be slaves if the applecart had not been upset in the 1860s. In the 1960s and ‘70s, blacks had to make threats to level the playing field; the squeaky wheel does get the grease, it cannot be denied. All over the world things change painfully as well as fitfully. There will in fact be more hate speech, more riots and more violence though the mitigation is: the violence wont be as severe as it was way back when. BTW, if it takes riots at the GOP convention in Florida to make a statement concerning the distinct possibility Romney might be elected POTUS and the outcome is Bush3, then let there be riots. If I were young I’d go ballistic at the cluelessness of the previous decade, continuing to this day.
One of the benefits of modernity is we discuss things more realistically than before, and whether or not I personally am hiding (would rather someone else get his head broken) behind ‘pragmatism’, it is also based on what does occur and not merely what ought to occur. Things ought to change peacefully, but we haven’t reached that stage in our evolution.

@Intomorrow
“albeit Joern lives in Scandinavia and the level of disaffection and violence-proneness is not as high there as other locations”
Well, I suppose that Breivik kind of rises the moving average of Scandinavian violence-proneness.

@Peter
“But now suppose I incite people to exert violence or discrimination against some kind of minority group that, because of disability or simply because it is a small minority, is unable to defend itself.” Yes, this is the ultimate justification of all contemporary hate speech laws - some people are just too weak to withstand by themselves the consequences of verbal aggressions. That is why a public law enforcement agency must step in, to counterbalance this alleged weakness. On paper, it looks like a rather persuasive and reasonable argument. But it has two very important problems :

1) First, it implies that the local human community must be divided into two subclasses : those who cannot cope with verbal aggressions (and therefore must be protected), and those who can autonomously resist verbal aggressions (ergo, it can be verbally attacked without any legal consequence). It is important to notice that we cannot have laws protecting every individual sensitivity against verbal offenses. As Peg noticed in the article, universal protection against verbal abuses would just lead to total aphasia. Imagine that someone published a paper suggesting that black males in US should be castrated to reduce their incarceration rate, and therefore the absolute number of testosterone-related crimes. The editor would face legal problems - no doubt about it. Yet, articles examining, from a feminist perspective, the utility of genital mutilation of males can be read, discussed, and trigger even a couple of socially acceptable jokes. Another example, people can make fun in public - and even seriously discuss in academic papers - of mental retardation and brain underdevelopment connected with certain beliefs (global warming denial, religious fundamentalism, etc.). My point is that political forces of the time - albeit transmitted with democratic methods - determine who can be freely insulted and who cannot. This is absolutely unacceptable - because it means that any vociferous interest groups can hijack the legislative machinery and violently abuse its natural enemies. Yes, I stress the word “violently” - because behind an insult there is only the dynamic chance of local sound waves, but behind a hate speech law there are cops forcibly dragging you to the local jail. This makes all the difference.

2) The other reason why these hate speech laws should be condemned is about the sociological changes that such bills promote. There has been a major historical movement in the last century. People for western societies started outsourcing a number of activities that once every individual was supposed to handle by himself/herself. A century ago every common folk was supposed to have certain basic mechanical, technical, personal skills. Now we need professional help almost for everything. Overall, this is the logical consequence of specialization and it increase the efficient allocation of resources. But these historical movements have certain risks. This extreme human specialization in developed societies means that certain segments of the population are completely dependent on other segments even for the most basic, everyday needs. When you cannot even cope with verbal inconveniences without external help - you are a symbiotic appendix of the local political powers. And this is serious. Everyone should consider very carefully all the risks involved in delegating to political forces even such basics prerogatives. See what happens now in Greece where so many people lived in close symbiosis with a specific political structure, depending on its welfare, its largess, its rules. Once the political fortune of old Greece has been crashed, people discover they are suddenly out in the cold. This should never happen. And imagine how could a possible future be, when people would not even be able anymore to give autonomously the middle finger.

André raises two issues that are indeed fundamental problems of the modern world, namely policy capture by vested interests and the systemic vulnerability caused by extreme specialisation and interdependence. The problem with using these as arguments against hate speech laws, however, is that they can be used equally well as arguments against just about any other law designed to protect the weak. Should we all then become survivalists and live as armed militia far from civilisation?

The answer, of course, is no. Rather we need to build into our geopoliticoeconoecological system mechanisms (such as anti-trust laws, lobbying registers, publicly financed redundancy) that reduce policy capture and system vulnerability. We need to massively direct resources towards think tanks and NGOs specifically aimed at attacking these problems. But I do not see why they should be used specifically as arguments against hate speech laws.

Peter, -
I’ve been hijacked by my wife, so just one quick thought: I don’t think you and I disagree as much as it appears, and there is one specific reason why we kind of talk past each other. It is this: We use each our “strawman”. Your strawman is the weak, the underdogs, and I can assure you that we all find that very admirable, and my strawman is.. lets’s say authorities, - authorites i DON’T like.
Perhaps it comes down to your highly empathetic character, and my more.. rebellious perhpas..

@Joern
It may be less my “empathetic character” (such as it is) than my upbringing: I was indeed brought up to be see confrontation in a very negative light, and to be generally respectful of authority. In fact I’ve had to learn to nuance both tendencies over the years, to become more willing to fight and more rebellious when I need to be. But indeed I was coming to a similar conclusion: we are both sceptical regarding the effectiveness of restrictions on free speech - see for example my initial comments on the Arizona bill with regard to enforceability - and perhaps we can also both agree that there are some circumstances (defamation, incitement to violence etc) where such restrictions may nevertheless be justified.

@Intomorrow I haven’t so far attempted a serious response to your “it can’t work in America” points. I still don’t buy them. What makes the Arizona law interesting for me (and indeed interesting, rather than outrageous) is that it exists in a country where protection of free speech is one of the most fundamental guiding principles - more so than it is in Europe - enshrined in the Constitution. My concern is that it has become something of a sacred cow, something that must not be questioned, to which people have a quasi-religious devotion. I suppose it’s true that on a society that is generally violent and rough-edged it’s going to be less tenable to insist on people speaking politely to each other than one where the norms already by and large favour this. But in many respects I think some Europeans tend to be considerably more rude, than Americans. Or at least not noticeably less so. Perhaps this is more true in the North-East than elsewhere, but - to take a trivial example - I definitely get the impression that in some sections of US society there is a stronger taboo against strong language than there generally is in Europe.

In any case, I don’t think it should be legal anywhere for anyone to incite persecution against individuals or groups of people, whether from inside a mosque or church or elsewhere. When something is clearly wrong, it should also be illegal.

@Peter
“Should we all then become survivalists and live as armed militia far from civilisation?”
I admit that my arguments can indeed be used against any law designed to protect a specific subset of the population. But - why does it have to be so black or white? I purposefully did not mention any totalitarian nightmare (at least this time) Why to picture a compound of survivalists as the only alternative to a legal system enforcing hate speech laws? There are many alternatives to the current system, and I do believe that somewhere in the middle between the team of armed survivalists and the herd of infantilized citizens we can find a better alternative.

So, maybe there should really be no laws protecting minorities, special interest groups, or weak economic sectors. Classical liberalism provides a reasonable alternative that does not involve a shotgun under your pillow and canned food. Maybe we can search a positive alternative in simple legal systems that defend only a few fundamental prerogatives of every human being, no matter how weak, strong, or socially disadvantaged. A system that expects everyone at least to cope with verbal offenses, without calling a maternal police force for help. A system that expect its citizens to be independent and sovereign, as long as they do not cross certain, important, universal moral lines.

@André
Yes, I agree that we should find a middle ground - or rather: consolidate, expand and refine the middle ground that we have already found - between warring survivalist communities and herds of infantilised citizens. The question is where to strike the balance, and how good a job classical liberalism does.

You’ve described the benefits of classical liberalism very well, but there are reasons why liberalism has its detractors, and they are not all bad. Classical liberalism, for example, does not provide for minimum welfare on which social cohesion and stability in times of crisis depend. And it’s not only the poor who suffer from the extreme poverty that results from premature attempts to “responsibilise” citizens who are not yet ready for it. By and large, most of us, because we are not psychopaths, would prefer to live in a world where there is no abject poverty. In some ways I believe that rich people find poverty more (psychologically) disturbing than poor people. The Buddha, priveleged aristocrat that he was, was so disturbed by it that he even (absurdly) concluded that life mainly involved suffering and that we should be trying to escape from the cycle of life. A sad kind of utopia if ever there was one.

It is basically against this background that socialism arose, and while its excesses are ugly and make it easy for ignorant conservatives and libertarians to demonise it, the tamer version of social democracy has greatly improved living conditions in Europe and beyond. On the spectrum from warring survivalists (extreme right) to infantilised sheeple (extreme left) it clearly lies, compared to classical liberalism, further to the left than the right, but I really don’t think it does a worse job than classical liberalism at occupying the middle.

So perhaps what it boils down to is that politically I’m further to the left than you, Joern or Giulio? In principle I’m a utilitarian, which basically means “whatever works to maximise overall well-being”, and if you can convince me that I need to move to the right then I’ll happily do so. I certainly think one can overdo nanny-statism. But simple appeals to liberal principles as arguments against state intervention mainly just strike me as behind the times.

Incidentally, I have seen it argued (by an Irish academic) that ideological commitment in Westminster to liberal principles was a major cause of the Irish potato famine. They were probably thinking, “Why can’t those Irish peasants just claim their rights responsibly instead of running to mother in Westminster?” And interestingly, the same article claims that in the first wave of the crop failure, when the Tories were in power instead of the liberal Whigs, Westminster intervened much more proactively and averted disaster. Sometimes actual conservatives can be more sensible than ideological libertarians (including most modern English-speaking “conservatives”).

Andre’,
Breivik was an anomaly, and hopefully he will remain “was”. I was in Scandinavia for a few weeks and though the region is not necessarily better than America, it was at the time I was there (1989) decidedly less in-your-face. Now if Scandinavians are repressing their frustrations and would like to be more offensive, then how much more would Scandinavian-stock in America wish to be obnoxious? the film ‘Fargo’, albeit fiction, brought up the fact that the Upper Midwest has a few million Scandinavians who do in fact repress their frustrations, and, to invoke another film, ‘Network’, would like to open their windows to shout,

“I’m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Again, Pete, what works—and you have apparently mentioned this—in the Northeast might not succeed in Arizona, though it may be worth the attempt.
We are from similar backgrounds, my parents told their children to never fight back under any circumstances, and now we are all passive-aggressive. Any soldier can tell you there is a time to press the offensive, and a time to switch to the defense if not go into General Retreat. You are naturally correct on balance; though it is true obnoxious rhetoric is as a rule mistaken, there are exceptions to the rule: the obvious one, IMO, being blacks had to be offensive way back when (and I remember it), they had to not only be squeaky to get the grease, but also to vent their anger, as they were being told to be men but also be mice at the same time (sorry for the mixed-metaphors, Cygnus). Blacks probably really did have to say things such as “off the pigs” and make other threats to alter the status quo in their favor. This is why those who dismiss OWS as 20-somethings living with their parents are not being quite fair.. what are youths supposed to do? I’d be worried if they didn’t rebel; it would mean they are sheeple who go with the ‘program’, who go along to get along—while lacking the convictions the program is authentic. Youth are continuously manipulated to be walking anachronisms.
Way back when they did go too far in calling to smash the ‘system’ (when no system actually exists), yet they were provoked and they became bolshie and offensive for a few years. Remember how as soon as the Draft was ended, the bolshiness substantially evaporated, the “off the pigs” offensiveness virtually disappeared. Sure, some OWS-types to this day overreact, however they have been and are being provoked.

@Intomorrow
Indeed, and race relations is a good illustration of the extreme naïveté (or sheer misanthropy) of ideological commitments to classical liberalism. The idea of defending “just a few fundamental prerogatives for every human being” sounds lovely in principle, but in practice it did little to prevent people justifying their racist prejudices with Biblical quotes. While pastors were liberally exercising their right to free speech, blacks were being told they were only fit for manual labour because they were descended from the wrong son of Noah. The kind of thing our dear own pastor here on this blog tends to conveniently forget.

Of course, no political ideology yet invented can eliminate the possibility for prejudice, discrimination and other evils - as you have pointed out elsewhere, this will require some hardcore bioengineering - but at least we should avoid letting them prevent us from taking sensible measures to make such things less prevalent. Whether hate speech laws fit this category is debatable, but if we are to rule them out then let’s at least do so on pragmatic, empirical grounds - and after giving them a chance to work - rather than on anachronistic ideological grounds.

BTW, whites don’t have to tolerate blacks if they don’t want to. If you merely glance at white nationalist sites (for instance http://www.stormfront.org), you’ll see how powerful racial sexual-reproductive sentiments are- just for starters. But, inversely, blacks are not obligated to appreciate whites—and many whites can’t abide such, they think blacks have to remain docile and “accept what God has granted them”, or somesuch. People have thought this way for millennia, so it is not really all that surprising how cathected it is.

Agreed, anti-hate speech laws ought to be given a chance; however when I was in Arizona five years ago (to visit Alcor) it was positively shocking to witness how rightwing AZ is. Not conservative, not libertarian; AZ is Rightist. It appears the enemies of anti-hate speech laws will rebel and fly Confederate flags and so forth. Yet, as always, what do we have to lose by trying? the Civil Rights movement demonstrated how blacks had to pull every string for decades to get ahead. Paradoxically (or perhaps this is a conundrum) Americans don’t have much use for uppity people albeit they have no respect whatsoever for those who don’t stick up for themselves, they can live in the streets if they aren’t willing to bootstrap themselves.
Call it Christian-Darwinism, if you will.
As far as I know, in America the best defense is the offense (how do you think America became the Colossus bestriding the Earth, in 1945? via the love of Jesus Christ? probably not; we clawed our way up to the top starting, say, circa 1898).

Anti-hate laws in Arizona are positive IMO, but would have to agree with Joern—in effect—the laws wouldn’t do much good at this time.. such statutes are to test the water for the future. Not unprecedented: as early as the ‘40s there were halting steps towards Civil Rights; in the ‘50s Allen Dulles began realizing the Soviets would use black marginalization against America, so Dulles put out feelers asking if something could be done. In ‘64 the Civil Rights bill was signed. Pete, I’ve been around so long a couple of decades doesn’t seem so long a time, if it takes a couple decades for anti-hate speech laws to take root from the seeds which are planted now, then that’s that. You look back and see how convoluted progress has been, “unlinear” as they used to say.

@Intomorrow
Of course you are right. I was basically joking. Breivik was just an exception. My guess it that - when you see a Scandinavian with a gun, most likely he’s going to shoot himself after he realized to be too shy to complain with the shop assistant about those canned herrings, which apparently were not as putrid as he expected (example of hate speech - just an academic example, I honestly do not think that Scandinavians are just a bounce of shy, suicidal, fish-eaters)

@Peter
I think you are not really being fair with classical liberalism
Now, I suppose that we have different historical interpretations, but it is really hard to deny how we broke out of the Malthusian trap also thanks to liberal legal systems (Bernstein, 2004, The Birth of Plenty). I do not want to detail my historical perspective here - I am not such a sadist - however, I want to stress how the very existence of science, and therefore of our spectacular technological advancements, requires certain methodological pillars. One of them is - the absolute respect for all the linguistic expressions of any unorthodox idea. Without this principle - science cannot exist, period. You can say that hate speech laws were not written to silence science, that they have different, nobler roots. But I say - authorities have always been introducing oppressive legislations thanks to very moral excuses. When I read that someone might go to jail because of ideas he or she expressed - I worry. Because I know that now, someone has one more tool to silence ALSO dissent and innovation. Because history provides with an incredible number of negative examples, under similar circumstances. Things get out of hand quickly. And I really do not see how can this be seen as a legislative progress.

“Indeed, and race relations is a good illustration of the extreme naïveté (or sheer misanthropy) of ideological commitments to classical liberalism. The idea of defending “just a few fundamental prerogatives for every human being” sounds lovely in principle, but in practice it did little to prevent people justifying their racist prejudices with Biblical quotes.”
Sorry, but I have to answer to this. I am not sure about your point here. Are you trying to say that KKK or black enslavement existed because prevailing liberal principles allowed certain men to express racist ideas? Or are you making some kind of anthropological analysis - saying that Adam Smith and his followers are just a bounce heartless, spoiled children - because they want to see disadvantaged humans suffering? Am I a misanthropist if I allow a racist to express his stupid ideas? Should poor Hank see the gallows because he expressed clearly racist ideas about Jews and IQ? I remind you that liberalism implies the absolute respect for life and property. So, while I let all racists speak freely their mind, I will never allow them to put them in practice. This makes all the difference. And this also seems to be very hard to understand to many socialists and Bismark’s fans. We can have both respect for deviant human expressions and a peaceful, ordered society - when we establish clearly, and reasonably, certain, universal, minimum moral limits.

“I have seen it argued (by an Irish academic) that ideological commitment in Westminster to liberal principles was a major cause of the Irish potato famine” Only an academic (i.e. someone who knows nothing of agriculture) can blame a famine to liberal principles. A five minutes talk with any farmer can easily dissolve such ideas. Instead, I want to notice here that, instead - Lysenko’s idiocies caused terrible, tragic famines because of their political lymph. Dissenting biologists were silenced (at times, tragically) because of the incompatibility of their (more correct) ideas with dialectic materialism. This is what happens when ignorant, uncultivated individuals have the power to give legal problems (in the form of cops, jails, or worse) to those who simply say something they do not like. Today, white supremacists. Tomorrow, it might be someone else. Maybe trashumanists, who knows?

@André

Me unfair? Never!

Seriously, though, I still find your defence of liberalism excessive. I agree that historically it has played an essential role in taking civilisation to the next level, and that progress - together with the key insights of liberalism - are worth preserving. But let me pick up especially on your claim: “While I let all racists freely speak their mind, I will never allow them to put [their racist ideas] into practice.”

Taken at face value this claim is clearly absurd,, so I’m going to rephrase it to mean what I think you intended, namely, “While I take the position that all racists should be free to speak their mind, I also take the position that their racist ideas should never be out into practice.”

But here’s the problem: YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE whether those ideas are put into practice, and if you tolerate racists and religious zealots speaking their ideas freely, you shouldn’t surprised if their ideas ARE put into practice. Am I suggesting that any time anyone says anything even vaguely racist they should risk punishment? Certainly not. But this doesn’t mean we should be tolerating any kind of verbal toxicity anyone is moved to spew out. If we don’t want bad ideas to be put into practice, then we need to tackle the problem at source.

Of course, tackling the problem at source doesn’t primarily mean limiting free speech. Tackling the problem at source means trying to figure out WHY people are engaging in hate speech, and then taking steps to reduce those drivers. In generally I agree that this is going to be a FAR more effective strategy than throwing the offenders into our already overcrowded prisons, and it also avoids the risks that you have highlighted. But if you want to know why your comment is so “very hard to understand to many socialists and Bismark’s fans” (whatever that is supposed to mean), then consider the implicit naïveté of imagining, even subconsciously (and really I DON’T think I’m over-interpreting your choice of words here), that you actually have the power to decide which ideas are put into practice.

By the way, famines are caused by a combination of crop failure and other factors. In the Irish case I find it perfectly plausible that excessive devotion to liberal principles played an exacerbating, perhaps even critical, role in turning a problem into a catastrophe. Of course there are other examples where more attention to liberal principles would have helped.

@Peter
“But here’s the problem: YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE whether those ideas are put into practice” Exactly, and you neither. Nobody knows when someone ideas will trigger any action. That is why modern legal systems, inspired by liberal principles, punish only criminal actions, and not criminal intentions.

Let us focus on a real example. Spike Lee wrote tweeted Zimmerman’s (wrong) address, apparently inciting his readers to go and punish Trayvon’s killer. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he gave the right address and an angry mob lynched Zimmerman. Question. Could Spike Lee be considered accessory to murder, or somehow liable for the event? This is a clear example of mere words with potentially tragic consequences.

I think that Spike Lee should not be considered liable at all. People are responsible for what they do, and for the angry mobs they join. One thing is the word of a mafia boss ordering his subordinates to kill someone. He is hierarchically inserted in a violent human group, so his decisions about murdering someone, even if he merely used a linguistic expression, are indeed functionally triggering the murderous actions of his gangsters. He is responsible just as much as the actual killer. But someone saying that black, or women, or white males are somehow inferior, disgusting, or dumb - is doing a completely different thing. I hope you can agree on this difference.

By the way, I apologize to everybody - and to Peter in particular, being my current interlocutor - for the poor linguistic quality of my comments lately. Obviously, I should reread at least once what I wrote, and also take another couple of English lessons.

“My guess it that - when you see a Scandinavian with a gun, most likely he’s going to shoot himself after he realized to be too shy to complain with the shop assistant about those canned herrings, which apparently were not as putrid as he expected”

When you see an American with a gun, most likely he’s going to attempt to break the Virginia Tech Massacre perpetrator’s record in one fell swoop.

... to cut the clowning around, the AZ speech laws ought to be given a chance; if the statutes fail and are rescinded- later on another attempt can be made.
BTW, just saw an old book in a used section of a bookshop called:

‘The Faggots and Their Friends Between Revolutions’

Eye-catching title, reminds one of nonlinearity.

ha ha, i see potential here for a whole line of (offensive) jokes…“When you see an X with a gun, most likely he’s ...”
which one will be trying to turn it into a nuclear bomb?  which one will shoot it with the safety on? (that’d be me, the Canadian)  which one…

Was hoping to defuse the joke-making potential before it started a chain reaction.
BTW, here’s a link to TFATFBR:
www.queermagic.org/files/FaggotsAndFriends.pdf

It turned out to be a bit different than what it seemed to be at first glance.

@André

On the linguistic issue I am every bit as guilty as you are - my preferred approach is to blame the iPad autocorrect

Yes I understand the difference between a mafia boss and a Spike Lee-style incitement, and no I don’t think in the hypothetical scenario you describe that it would have been appropriate to make him accessory to murder. That would be too strong. But that doesm’t mean that no kind of sanction is justified, not does it mean that intent is irrelevant. Peg and I have covered this earlier in the thread: intent matters, and our legal system has, in some cases, found a way to take this into account. This is as it should be.

What is clear, of course, is that whatever restrictions on free speech we decide to impose (beyond those we already have such as slander, defamation etc), they need to be rigourously defined and consistently applied. But my point still stands: there is plenty of good reason to consider limitations on free speech in cases of extreme violations of what can be considered decent (and again, this needs to be meticulously and objectively defined), and no reason to oppose them on liberal grounds any more than there is to oppose any other constraint on our behaviour designed to help us to live together more peaceably.