[brigandish]

From The Times[1]:

> More than 3,300 people were detained and questioned last year over so-called trolling on social media and other online forums

13 forces declined to give the information which means it is very likely to be far higher. That was a couple of years ago and it appears to be increasing.

As to advantages of free speech, social freedoms are strongly correlated with economic freedom, and hence, economic success. Simply to look at an ordered list by GDP would correlate with free speech strongly. Even the anomolies would support it, like China, by using a historical chart.

Are hate speech laws making Europe safer? Maybe it would be better if you tried to show that with some statistics.

[1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-peo...

[peteretep]

> As to advantages of free speech, social freedoms are strongly correlated with economic freedom, and hence, economic success. Simply to look at an ordered list by GDP would correlate with free speech strongly.

I suspect you have not done your research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...

But, the question I originally asked remains, although I'll restate it to make it even easier to answer. You are tasked with convincing a newly formed republic to add a constitutional right to free speech like the USA, rather than free-ish speech like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. What are your arguments, based on these countries? What has the US gained over these countries from that free speech, exactly?

[serf]

>What has the US gained over these countries from that free speech, exactly?

I think it's non-trivial to try to quantify the effects of free speech.

Freeform opinions off the top of my head:

the definitions of 'hate speech' are too fluid, allowing argument opposition to massage the definition until your protest against them is considered to be hateful -- which then allows legal options to silence the opinion.

The United States has been the culture leader of the Western world for some time, and the position seems to be ever-increasing. The United States is , and has been, the largest media producer ever . This allows the United States to own the most effective propaganda engine the world has ever seen.

New branches of media genre and topic since the 1900s are almost entirely US-centric (Pop art, Beatniks, Flower power, hip-hop and rap culture, jazz, blues, etc) -- many of them included topics like public dissent and negative opinion of government that would've been entirely illegal in the majority of the rest of the world. They are all now ubiquitous throughout the world, spreading US-centric culture to all reaches.

I think that freedom of speech helped to facilitate the role the United States now holds within 'Western Civilization', related to the above mentioned points.

In my opinion, in our world, owning the world's biggest propaganda engine seems to be the most dominating weapon yet.

Some questions :

If forming a government, and the results of certain variables are unclear, why not try to wholeheartedly clone the most successful example? The United States is that example, at the moment.

At what point is a parity reached between damages of false-imprisonment, and actual damage accrued from the results of hate speech?

What are the damages of hate speech? Can you realistically consider damages from a violent individual to have been caused by hate speech -- or is that a good scapegoat for a mentally disturbed individual to kill people with?

Why do we attack social problems with less communication, and enforced communication, rather than with care for the ill individuals who display behavior outside the social healthy norm? Will macro actions help problems that stem from individual issues?

And most importantly : Who gets to define our speech? Who holds the keys to the kingdom? Who deserves that trust?

[peteretep]

That's a lot of points, so I'm going to simply hone in on one point which I feel is sort of indicative here:

> If forming a government, and the results of certain variables are unclear, why not try to wholeheartedly clone the most successful example?

I genuinely, honestly believe that of the countries I've highlighted, the people in the US get the rawest deal. It ranks lowest in life expectancy, locks up three times as many people as the next highest on that list, people get the least paid time off, obesity is by far the worst, people still go medically bankrupt(!!!), people are killed by law enforcement at three times the rate of the next highest (Canada), inequality (via Gini coefficient), homicide rate is 4x the nearest neighbor (UK). In short, I think it's hard to build an argument off "copy what the United States did because they're the best".

[claudiawerner]

>What are the damages of hate speech? Can you realistically consider damages from a violent individual to have been caused by hate speech -- or is that a good scapegoat for a mentally disturbed individual to kill people with?

Not only the actions of the individual (we must remember concepts such as stochastic terrorism) due to hearing hate speech, but also the harm of the speech itself. There's substantial work done on this concept, i.e. that speech itself at least has the potential to be actually harmful, and that there is no meaningful rigorous distinction between "speech" and "action" - metaphysical or otherwise. In this way, regulating speech should be just like we regulate any other kind of action. As Brison has said:

"although this relational account helps to explain why the right to speak and to receive others’ speech is important, it does not yield a defense of the view that speech is special, requiring greater justification for its regulation than is needed for the regulation of other conduct."

This[0] is a great paper to read for the argument. There are also more 'traditional arguments arguing that Mill's ideal (and the principle that free speech is based on) has become obsolete in the face of the ever-shortening distance between speech and action (which was observed during the rise of the Nazi Party), along with the function of mass media which dulls critical thinking[1].

[0] SJ Brison, "Speech, Harm, and the Mind-Body Problem in First Amendment Jurisprudence" (1998) http://susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_mindb...

[1] "Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc." (Herbert Marcuse, "Repressive Tolerance" (1965))

[brigandish]

Thanks for those links. Much as I disagree if your summary is correct, I'll definitely give them read, they look interesting.

[brigandish]

> I suspect you have not done your research

Where did I mention GDP per capita?[1]

When it comes to insights about freedom I prefer to rely on research such as the Human Freedom Index, that I read yearly[2], instead of trying to present data in a way that I can rely on exceptions to support my view, from Wikipedia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [2] https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new

[pjc50]

"Safety" from hate speech is difficult to define in statistical terms, because it tends to be nonlinear - everything looks fine until someone goes on a murder spree or starts up the death camps again. The last European genocide was in my lifetime, at Srebrenica (which, incidentally, Spiked Magazine are denialists of)

Americans seem much more comfortable with the idea that both free speech and free gun ownership will get more people routinely killed; like car ownership, it's just part of the price, it seems.

The US seems to hang on the cusp of this, in having racially motivated mass murders only occasionally, that don't quite spill over into mass genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_attacks_...

[brigandish]

> Americans seem much more comfortable with the idea that both free speech and free gun ownership will get more people routinely killed; like car ownership, it's just part of the price, it seems.

In 2013 there were 33,636 deaths due to guns. Even without breaking down those figures (2/3 were suicides) it would take 178 years to reach the 6 million regularly claimed to be the total for the Holocaust. That seems to be a fair price to avoid genocide and tyranny.

Why would any of the mass murders "spill over" into mass genocide? I don't see why one should logically follow from the other (I stress logically because they obviously don't in practice, as the example of the US shows).

[hollerith]

>the 6 million regularly claimed to be the total for the Holocaust

Not to mention the other 42 million civilians and prisoners of war (mostly Russian and Chinese) killed by soldiers during WW II.

[pjc50]

> 33,636 deaths due to guns

.. or four Srebrenicas, or roughly the entire historical body count of the Troubles. If it was concentrated then we would say that it was genocide.

The big threat of the moment is "stochastic terrorism". If you tell enough people that X is a threat that is coming for them - that they are going to be victims of a holocaust - then eventually one of them will follow the logic that they can use their gun to avoid the holocaust by pre-emptively murdering the threat. Most people will recognise these messages as lies and nonsense, but there will be a number who believe it. Of those, eventually one will take action.

There has been a steady drip of those people "taking action", such as by going and opening fire on synagogues. Often they leave behind surprisingly similar manifestoes. They speak the same language and are radicalised in the same way, despite never having met nor being part of the same organisation.

Now, this is ""fine"" as long as there's only one such movement carrying out occasional massacres. What happens when someone decides to start pre-emptively shooting back? Reprisals? Riots? As soon as there's two armed groups in politics there is the risk of horrible escalation.

[brigandish]

> or four Srebrenicas, or roughly the entire historical body count of the Troubles.

If you're going to compare the 300+ million population of the USA with something, it's better to do it with (German occupied) Europe than a place with a population of around 1% that of the USA. It's also strange to bring in wars, civil or otherwise, and again compare numbers when the entire population of the island has a population of around 2% that of the USA's.

> If you tell enough people that X is a threat that is coming for them - that they are going to be victims of a holocaust - then eventually one of them will follow the logic that they can use their gun to avoid the holocaust by pre-emptively murdering the threat.

I suppose we should stop saying "win at all costs" or "some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that." because maybe a Liverpool fan will go on a killing spree.

[ben_w]

Mass murders aren’t the the thing that spills over into genocide — they get stopped when the shooter runs out of bullets etc. — it’s hate speech which spills over because it gets the speaker an army which can replenish itself.

To put it another way, it’s not like Hitler personally shot all the people he killed, he convinced other people to do it for him.

[brigandish]

Good, we're agreed, hate speech is vile. What we're not agreed on is the response. I am convinced by John Stuart Mill that I am not infallible therefore I should not be judge of who can and cannot speak. I can, however, judge the speech and think it is wrong and oppose it with my own speech. If they move to violence I may defend myself or others.

Or I could claim infallibility and judge that this is hate speech but that is not so this person cannot speak or say these things but that person can. In Germany, the person doing the judging was Hitler and people who agreed with him.

It doesn't sound like the best system to me. A big help to his plans was that the people denied the right to hold weaponry for personal defence were… Jews. As Frederick Douglass pointed out when talking about the oppression of blacks in America, without the right to bear arms the work of the abolitionists would not be over. History proved him (and Mill) right in Germany too.

[ben_w]

You say:

> A big help to his plans was that the people denied the right to hold weaponry for personal defence were… Jews.

Mill also said:

> That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

Which rather limits the effectiveness of — for example — the Jewish people taking up arms in self-defence in WW2. However, if you wish to argue that every victim of persecution was defending the other victims rather than themselves, the same argument would enable those same victims using their guns to shoot the propagandists. In fact, as Mill was a Utilitarian, I would expect [1] him to prefer that the free speech of literal-third-Reich-Nazis to be suppressed with a few literal bullets in the face, than to allow the holocaust to be escalated to 17 million dead.

[1] If someone resurrected him with an ancestor simulation, I’d expect him to have difficulty believing something that bad could happen and that it wasn’t merely a thought experiment like the utilitarian eyelashes thought experiment (whose formal name I’ve forgotten) or the trolley problem. However, as a note of caution to what I’ve written, although I’ve studied Philosophy formally, I got a poor grade and may be misrepresenting Mill without being aware of it.

[brigandish]

I think you've misunderstood the Mill quote. Immediately preceding the quote you used:

> the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.

He's saying that others cannot compel someone to do things, even if it is for their own good. They may only interfere for their own self protection. This implies and supports the right to self defence.

Ending the paragraph containing the quote you provided:

> In the part [of his conduct] which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

This does not in any way limit or argue against the effectiveness or right to self defence but instead, again, supports it. I'd encourage you to read On Liberty as, in my opinion, it is the greatest modern philosophical work.