[jakelazaroff]

> P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause.

What stuff? Using this logic, why should anything be off-limits to the "public market of ideas"? e.g. libel should be perfectly acceptable speech — that way it can be exposed and refuted!

This is a particularly insidious point of view because it frames its own line between acceptable and unacceptable speech as some sort of natural law, when really it's just as arbitrary as any other line.

[waynecochran]

I don't know how to codify this, but there does seem to be some things that are just simply harmful with no benefit. For example, libel against a private individual.

[jakelazaroff]

Sure, but recognize that the line is entirely arbitrary. The only difference between child pornography, libel, white supremacist content and being mean is that people got together and said "you know what, this seems like just a bit too far".

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw lines between speech we're okay with and speech we're not. Literally every human being on the planet does it! This is why I don't like "marketplace of ideas" arguments: the person making them always always always still thinks some speech should be somehow punished in the market.

[whiddershins]

I am not sure you are correct.

Libel has a pretty narrow definition and clearly leaves the realm of opinions and ideas to a different realm of willfully lying about someone with the intent to harm them personally.

The fact that we remove libel protections from public figures including politicians already makes this an extremely narrow subset of speech.

Arguing that this is just another example of an arbitrary line within a grey area seems like a rhetorical device to overemphasize the subjectivity of speech protections in pursuit of making them no longer able to be consistently protected.

[jakelazaroff]

But the point is, why is libel illegal at all? I can mislead someone in order to get someone to buy something from me, but if I lie about a person it's not okay? Why is reputational damage worse than monetary?

The fact that it's okay to libel a public figure (a fact I didn't know until now!) further underscores how arbitrary it is. At what level of renown are you a "public figure"? How is it measured?

We should be as stringent as possible in legal exceptions to freedom of speech. But there's no moral obligation to protect any given speech from social consequences (such as getting kicked from your web host). No one is actually a free speech absolutist.

[whiddershins]

Lying to someone to get them to buy something is in many if not most cases called fraud, and is illegal on those grounds.

This is where speech becomes a kind of action: misleading people in business, directing people to do harmful or illegal things. It’s actually pretty interesting how consistent the common thread is ... incitement to illegal acts or misrepresentation which results in tangible harm.

[zaarn]

Libel has different definitions in different cultures and can have fairly wide definitions.

[whiddershins]

To my knowledge few if any jurisdictions have as expansive a concept of free speech as the United States. From the standpoint of US law, other legal systems could be said to not have freedom of speech.

Therefore the United States libel definition is most directly relevant to the overall point here.

[UncleMeat]

Yes, and to lots of us we believe that certain ideas are simply harmful with no benefit. We don't disagree on the principles. We disagree on where the lines are drawn.

[waynecochran]

Some have suggested one place a line can be drawn: It's always OK to "attack" an "idea" but never to "attack" an individual.

[UncleMeat]

And others have suggested different lines or suggested that certain ideas fundamentally attack individuals by their very nature.

I've never met an actual free speech absolutist. I've just met people who tolerate certain forms of hate speech.

[jakelazaroff]

But again, there's nothing that makes this line objectively better than any other. It makes sense to me, even though it's kind of vague — but the point is that it's still subjective.

[waynecochran]

Can you give an example of what you would consider an "objective statement" in a legal context? I daresay no such thing can exist.

[iamnothere]

This isn't libel, but Robin Hanson recently put together some interesting arguments on why blackmail should be legal. I don't agree with him, but it points to the fact that there is not universal agreement on even these widely-accepted notions of what is "too harmful" to allow.

[waynecochran]

Universal agreement on pretty much anything is non-existant.

[homonculus1]

Yes, even libel should be legal. If something damaging is a lie then it should be subject to civil penalties--but the government in no way should have the power to silence ideas by declaring them lies.

[UnFleshedOne]

How would collecting a fine from all parties publishing a libel be different from silencing that particular idea?

[blackflame7000]

It wouldn't be but that's ok. The intent is for that disagreement to be adjudicated on a case by case basis in the court of law instead of legislated because one size doesn't fit all in this case.