Is it time for free speech?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 12-04-2019 02:00PM

Undividual wrote: »

Sadly when Peterson is mentioned that is all some people hear. I can never understand the vitriol he receives.

But in all and anyways.... why not deal with the point instead? Who decides what is 'offensive' speech for example? It is not the public.

It depends how you're using the term. Hate speech, incitement to hatred etc are very clearly and specifically defined legal terms, decided by lawyers and legislators.

If you mean colloquially you may as well ask who decides what's amusing. Someone is amused, therefore something amusing has been said. Someone is offended, therefore something offensive has been said. It's a very subjective term, describing an emotional state, and there will be people who disagree in each case.

Now, whether one gives a rats arse that what one has said has been deemed offensive, whether one deems that offense legitimate, is also subjective. But if you think it's not legitimate that doesn't mean you're protected from people expressing their offense or disagreement, or that anyone is obliged to give you a platform.

I think it's crazy that a guy who basically wrote The Great Big Boy Manly Man version of Marie Kondo's book has somehow leveraged that and a pretty, erm idiosyncratic understanding of post-modernism into a position as the leading public intellectual of the 2010s, and I think he's a good deal less personally reprehensible than many of his fanboys; Peterson himself seems SOMEHOW shocked by the misogyny, anti-Semitism and racism that he's, apparently accidentally, legitimized. I understand that many people won't like that view, will disagree with it and will make assumptions and judgements about me because of the view and how I've expressed it. And I'm free not to give a fcuk, which I don't.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 12-04-2019 02:02PM

Grayson wrote: »

It's perfectly possible to legislate against fake news and hate speech online without outlawing criticism. We've already done it for hate speech in the real world.

It's not so easy, in fact.

The French government has used hate-speech laws to shut down protests against Israeli policy, deeming them antisemitic hate speech.

In the UK, an atheist was convicted for "religiously aggravated harassment" after he distributed fliers critical of Christianity and Islam.

In Russia, restrictions on speech essentially make criticism of the government a criminal offense.

Numerous other countries around the world use hate-speech laws or equivalent to suppress legitimate protests or to make people think twice about criticizing politicians and governments. Why do you think Ireland would be any different?

jimgoose · 12-04-2019 02:03PM

Keanu Obnoxious Tiger wrote: »

...Numerous other countries around the world use hate-speech laws or equivalent to suppress legitimate protests or to make people think twice about criticizing politicians and governments. Why do you think Ireland would be any different?

"To meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc) in Oceania, the ruling Party created Newspeak"...

Grayson · 12-04-2019 02:04PM

Just thinking it might make sense to include a critical thinking and research section in schools. Teach kids how to do basic research on news stories they hear so they can quickly work out the validity of the story. Most people who go to college will learn some of those skills. They've never been taught in school before because they weren't needed before. 30 years ago you didn't have thousands of news sources to choose from.

RayCun · 12-04-2019 02:04PM

Morgan Early Watermelon wrote: »

Peterson himself seems SOMEHOW shocked by the misogyny, anti-Semitism and racism that he's, apparently accidentally, legitimized.

I remember seeing on twitter something posted by someone who was in academia with Peterson a while back, and he was only known for two things

really, really not liking trans people
always getting his office door glued shut

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 12-04-2019 02:09PM

Grayson wrote: »

Just thinking it might make sense to include a critical thinking and research section in schools. Teach kids how to do basic research on news stories they hear so they can quickly work out the validity of the story. Most people who go to college will learn some of those skills. They've never been taught in school before because they weren't needed before. 30 years ago you didn't have thousands of news sources to choose from.

Oh, they were needed. The ability to detect obvious bias might have saved generations from being force-fed a steady stream of leftist claptrap by RTE.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 02:16PM

[

Undividual wrote: »

Sadly when Peterson is mentioned that is all some people hear. I can never understand the vitriol he receives.

But in all and anyways.... why not deal with the point instead? Who decides what is 'offensive' speech for example? It is not the public.

RayCun wrote: »

It's because he hasn't said anything original or interesting but some people treat him as an oracle.

That question doesn't cut very deep.

If you're a guest in my house, I decide.

If you are in a pub, the barman/landlord decides.

If you're on facebook or youtube, they decide.

If you're speaking in public in Ireland, the gardai and the courts and the legislature decide.

Does the public decide?

They elect the legislature, who appoint the courts and hire the gardai. If the public have a very different idea of what is offensive, the law/enforcement changes.

Facebook and youtube respond to public pressure. They aren't interested in some platonic ideal of offensiveness, they care about maximising user engagement.

If you're in a pub, the bar staff are balancing what they find to be offensive, what they think other customers will find offensive, and the desire not to lose too much business by barring anyone they think is an annoying idiot.

In my house, my decisions are weighed against other social obligations.

Your beef with Peterson is your own.

You've kind of broadly proved my point. The Gardaí, the courts and the legislature decide based upon the social norms of the day. One Guard could deem anti-Muslim grooming gang comments on social media as offensive or 'hate-speech' and take action. There are examples of this happening in Britain. The devil is in the details.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 02:19PM

RayCun wrote: »

I remember seeing on twitter something posted by someone who was in academia with Peterson a while back, and he was only known for two things
really, really not liking trans people

always getting his office door glued shut

Do you have any example of him "not liking trans people"?

My understanding is that he was protesting the compelled speech of Canadian law. Compelled speech seems to me to be one possible logical conclusion if you agree with censorship of speech.

nthclare · 12-04-2019 02:20PM

As a mature adult/ grown up
There's no such thing as hate speech, more like lack of empathy and compassion.

There's two sides to a discussion about hate speech, there's those who are incapable of empathy and the those who are over sensitive.

Common sense is what it comes down to really.

Just don't be a twat or a social justice warrior.

Stay away from the perpetually outraged and the Sjw types of herd mentality gatherings.

Fortunately for some of us logical thinking people,we can deflect banter, so called hate speech and emotionally charged insult's.

Going out of one's way to upset or be upset by people is the victim's fault as much as the bullies fault.

Just be mindful and have a bit of cop on.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 02:21PM

Grayson wrote: »

Just thinking it might make sense to include a critical thinking and research section in schools. Teach kids how to do basic research on news stories they hear so they can quickly work out the validity of the story. Most people who go to college will learn some of those skills.

Great idea

suicide_circus · 12-04-2019 02:23PM

Grayson wrote: »

He's an idiot. For anyone with training it's easy to spot the rhetorical slights of hand that he uses to justify his views. He's not held in high regard amongst academics.

Cant blame them. He's exposing the wizard behind the curtain. Im not a follower of his but he's clearly not an "idiot". i just like that he riles up the right kind of people.

RayCun · 12-04-2019 02:25PM

Undividual wrote: »

Your beef with Peterson is your own.

You brought him up, and you asked.

Undividual wrote: »

You've kind of broadly proved my point. The Gardaí, the courts and the legislature decide based upon the social norms of the day. One Guard could deem anti-Muslim grooming gang comments on social media as offensive or 'hate-speech' and take action. There are examples of this happening in Britain. The devil is in the details.

But what is your point?

That 'offensiveness' is based on the social norms of the day? There's a long, long list of things that are based on the social norms of the day.

RayCun · 12-04-2019 02:28PM

Undividual wrote: »

Do you have any example of him "not liking trans people"?

My understanding is that he was protesting the compelled speech of Canadian law. Compelled speech seems to me to be one possible logical conclusion if you agree with censorship of speech.

It's interesting that you go from arguing with the idea that he doesn't like trans people to acknowledging that the reason he's famous is his stance on trans people.

(I was just passing on something I saw on twitter. I don't have any photographs of his glued-shut door either)

Grayson · 12-04-2019 02:30PM

nthclare wrote: »

As a mature adult/ grown up
There's no such thing as hate speech, more like lack of empathy and compassion.

There's two sides to a discussion about hate speech, there's those who are incapable of empathy and the those who are over sensitive.

Common sense is what it comes down to really.

Just don't be a twat or a social justice warrior.

Stay away from the perpetually outraged and the Sjw types of herd mentality gatherings.

Fortunately for some of us logical thinking people,we can deflect banter, so called hate speech and emotionally charged insult's.

Going out of one's way to upset or be upset by people is the victim's fault as much as the bullies fault.

Just be mindful and have a bit of cop on.

Think about a neo nazi saying that the holocaust never happened but the jews deserve to be gassed anyway.

That's hate speech. It happens. Now that particular example might not be that common but it happens.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 02:37PM

RayCun wrote: »

It's interesting that you go from arguing with the idea that he doesn't like trans people to acknowledging that the reason he's famous is his stance on trans people.

(I was just passing on something I saw on twitter. I don't have any photographs of his glued-shut door either)

Not interesting at all if you know the details.

Nice disavowal of your obvious lack of knowledge btw.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 02:43PM

RayCun wrote: »

You brought him up, and you asked.

But what is your point?

That 'offensiveness' is based on the social norms of the day? There's a long, long list of things that are based on the social norms of the day.

My point is that rather than leaving a potentially broad (and dangerous) gap for the interpretation and application of the law, is it not simpler and morally right to allow people to say what they want without fear of punishment?

It seems to come down to whether you believe words make you responsible for someone else's actions.

BeerWolf · 12-04-2019 02:48PM

Free? It should be a paid for commodity! Each word you mutter will be €0.10. Makes you think twice before you speak!

RayCun · 12-04-2019 02:49PM

Undividual wrote: »

My point is that rather than leaving a potentially broad (and dangerous) gap for the interpretation and application of the law, is it not simpler and morally right to allow people to say what they want without fear of punishment?

Rather than leaving a potentially broad (and dangerous) gap for the interpretation and application of the law, is it not simpler and morally right to allow people to do what they want without fear of punishment?

why not?

And are you only concerned with freedom from legal consequences?

Or do you think speech should be free from all consequences? Illegal to bar people from your pub for speech, or suspend their account from a platform you own, or withdraw a job offer...?

Undividual wrote: »

It seems to come down to whether you believe words make you responsible for someone else's actions.

No, it doesn't. Incitement /= offensive

reg114 · 12-04-2019 02:52PM

Undividual wrote: »

"Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution. However the article qualifies this right, providing that it may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Ireland

It seems to me that we had a taste of freedom of speech with the introduction of the internet. Now it looks that we are seeing the introduction of regulations and censorship at a increasing rate:

NZ legally pursuing individuals who viewed the recent shooter's manifesto

Ireland introducing a quango aimed at 'internet safety' :rolleyes:

Mark Zuckerberg pushing the US government to regulate social media

Those examples are not all necessarily specific to censorship, but they could all be used in order to enact it.

I would much prefer that we followed a US approach to free speech. My view is that a word never killed anyone. Additionally, if I told a person to commit a crime, I don't believe that the person committing that crime is my responsibility.

Ultimately, we are either autonomous individuals or we are not.

Interested to know peoples' thoughts.

Ok lets have a look at the gold standard model when it comes to free speech ... The United States. No Thank you. There is quite frankly exceptionally little that is attractive about the notion that anyone should be allowed to say pretty much what they like, when they like about whom they like, which is the current constitutional right held my all Americans. Freedom of speech gives a dangerous voice to the extremists at worst and allows moderates to air factually incorrect opinions at best, without any fear of repercussion. Yes every human is a separate entity, but they dont live in a vacuum, but a society and for society to function such that it avoids descending into chaos, there must be some civil standards. One of those standards should be that you cannot simply say what you like about anything.

The internet has muddied the waters somewhat but I believe its only a matter of time before it is brought into line. We have seen instances where identification of victims of serious crime have been identified on twitter for example and this has led to arrests of those naming the victims.

The very fact that Trump was elected is in large part to his 'right' to spout absolute lies about everything and everyone while on the campaign trail. The American people have their precious constitution to blame for their current predicament. Look to the car crash that is America if you want a lesson on the 'merits' of free speech.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 02:54PM

Grayson wrote: »

Think about a neo nazi saying that the holocaust never happened but the jews deserve to be gassed anyway.

That's hate speech. It happens. Now that particular example might not be that common but it happens.

I still don't understand what's wrong with a neo Nazi saying that? I would expect that such a person would be laughed at, derided and generally held in contempt by society.

If he/she attempted to act on that sentiment then they should face the full force of the judicial system.

nthclare · 12-04-2019 03:16PM

Grayson wrote: »

Think about a neo nazi saying that the holocaust never happened but the jews deserve to be gassed anyway.

That's hate speech. It happens. Now that particular example might not be that common but it happens.

I know what you mean, what I said in my post should be considered from a rational point of view.

Common sense and sensibility is what I'm suggesting.

And ignore the knobs.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 03:37PM

reg114 wrote: »

Ok lets have a look at the gold standard model when it comes to free speech ... The United States. No Thank you. There is quite frankly exceptionally little that is attractive about the notion that anyone should be allowed to say pretty much what they like, when they like about whom they like, which is the current constitutional right held my all Americans. Freedom of speech gives a dangerous voice to the extremists at worst and allows moderates to air factually incorrect opinions at best, without any fear of repercussion. Yes every human is a separate entity, but they dont live in a vacuum, but a society and for society to function such that it avoids descending into chaos, there must be some civil standards. One of those standards should be that you cannot simply say what you like about anything.

The internet has muddied the waters somewhat but I believe its only a matter of time before it is brought into line. We have seen instances where identification of victims of serious crime have been identified on twitter for example and this has led to arrests of those naming the victims.

The very fact that Trump was elected is in large part to his 'right' to spout absolute lies about everything and everyone while on the campaign trail. The American people have their precious constitution to blame for their current predicament. Look to the car crash that is America if you want a lesson on the 'merits' of free speech.

I understand what you're saying though I think the problem with fake news is a lack of accountability. Both sides of the political divide are guilty of turning a blind eye when their own side is caught in a lie.

12-04-2019 03:50PM

kowloon wrote: »

It's unfortunate that some of the people most visibly championing freedom of speech are doing it because they're arseholes who want to believe they have a cause that's bigger than just wanting to be arseholes to people. Their support undermines anyone genuine about the necessity of freedom of speech.

Such as .... ?

12-04-2019 03:57PM

Grayson wrote: »

He's (Jordan Peterson) an idiot. For anyone with training it's easy to spot the rhetorical slights of hand that he uses to justify his views. He's not held in high regard amongst academics.

He's clearly not an idiot. Certainly less so than many other "intellectuals" in the public debate. The level of intellect in public discourse is so shockingly low, coupled with it's absolute conformity of views, makes Peterson look like an intellectual colossus. Definitely think he is one of the most misunderstood characters out there.

RayCun · 12-04-2019 04:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He's clearly not an idiot. Certainly less so than many other "intellectuals" in the public debate. The level of intellect in public discourse is so shockingly low, coupled with it's absolute conformity of views, makes Peterson look like an intellectual colossus. Definitely think he is one of the most misunderstood characters out there.

Have you read any of his books?

Have you read any books by current professors of psychology or philosophy in any major universities? How are you judging the standard of public discourse?

Or do you think he looks like an intellectual colossus because you heard that he owns the libs?

nthclare · 12-04-2019 04:06PM

RayCun wrote: »

Have you read any of his books?

Have you read any books by current professors of psychology or philosophy in any major universities? How are you judging the standard of public discourse?

Or do you think he looks like an intellectual colossus because you heard that he owns the libs?

He definitely owns the Libs, even Milo Yiannopolous can own the so called Libs.

I was watching debate's recently between Libs and Rationale.
It strikes me how emotionally triggered these libs get.

Never staying on topic and almost crying.

There's no point in debating or working with someone who's emotionally charged and has the vocabulary of a docker or fishwife.

It's totally futile getting any kind of balance with these people.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 04:14PM

RayCun wrote: »

Rather than leaving a potentially broad (and dangerous) gap for the interpretation and application of the law, is it not simpler and morally right to allow people to do what they want without fear of punishment?

why not?

And are you only concerned with freedom from legal consequences?

Or do you think speech should be free from all consequences? Illegal to bar people from your pub for speech, or suspend their account from a platform you own, or withdraw a job offer...?

No, it doesn't. Incitement /= offensive

Where did I say that people should be free from social consequences? I didn't realise free speech meant putting words in other someone else's mouth...

I don't like the idea of people being censored on the internet because a political agenda could be applied when deciding what to censor. I don't care what a pub owner does.

Where did I say that incitement equals offence? Not sure what point you're failing to make.

BrokenArrows · 12-04-2019 04:14PM

free speech will always have conditions attached to it.
Without conditions people can and will say whatever they want and nothing legally can be done about it.

The conditions are there to try and prevent scenarios like Hitler.

meeeeh · 12-04-2019 04:20PM

The is problem with free speech. People who generalise from individual to a group are usually terribly offended when they are told that they are a bit dumb. I find people usually want free speech for themselves not for others.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 04:21PM

RayCun wrote: »

Have you read any of his books?

Have you read any books by current professors of psychology or philosophy in any major universities? How are you judging the standard of public discourse?

Or do you think he looks like an intellectual colossus because you heard that he owns the libs?

I've read one of his books, 12 Rules. Not strictly about psychology I would say but practical and informative.

I've read a number of psychology books, though not from many current professors. What psychology books would you recommend? And which in your opinion contradict Peterson?

Is it time for free speech?

Comments