[LegitShady]

>In fact, perhaps they would take exception to your assertion that they are actively seeking control, is that not a possibility?

Why would them taking exception mattered if they couldn't control the speech of others? Let them take exception and do whatever they want with it so long as it doesn't affect the rights or ability of others to speak.

>How do you know they are not being harmed by those who actively utter speech designed to be hurtful?

Is speech hurtful or offensive? That's the crux of the issue, and you've assumed the end before you argued a position, so you've put the cart before the horse and assumed your intended consequence. It's not a logical argument.

>What qualification can you present that would make me trust in your assessment of some other person's level of tolerance to abuse?

Who are you again, that I need to provide qualifications to you? And why do you keep assuming the conclusion by saying offensive speech is 'abuse', when it isn't? What qualifications do you have that let you do that?

>And really, "tolerance to abuse" here means "inability to escape abuse."

again, assuming being offended is the same thing as being abused. Nonsense.

>your willful offending

I find your bad faith argument offensive, so we'll take your definitions and say they're abusive and you're being willfully abusive to me - please stop abusing me.

[ImPostingOnHN]

>Is speech hurtful or offensive? That's the crux of the issue

Agreed (well, "can it be", but otherwise same thing)

We heard some arguments that it can be (encouraging suicide, dehumanizing minorities, inciting insurrection,etc).

Do you think it cannot be? What are your arguments to support this position if so?

>assuming being offended is the same thing as being abused. Nonsense

Do you belive, even if the speech were to rise to the level of abuse, it would be harmful? If not, the distinction seems meaningless. If so, it seems a tacit admission that speech can be harmful.

[LegitShady]

>We heard some arguments that it can be (encouraging suicide, dehumanizing minorities, inciting insurrection,etc). Do you think it cannot be? What are your arguments to support this position if so?

Some of these claims are stupid, and some of these claims apply to speech that is already illegal even with freedom of speech. It doesn't apply to twitter, given the majority of the speech being censored has nothing to do with that. It's like arguing about abortion by using a motte and bailey involving abortion post rape - its an emotional argument that accounts for something like 1% of all abortion if that. It's not an honest argument as to what is going on.

I think speech in general should be legal. I think speech can be offensive. I don't think most speech is hurtful. Are the founding fathers of the united states guilty of being hurtful, and should they have had their speech censored? They incited an insurrection.

Such blanket approaches and nonsense examples (compared to what's actually being censored) are just the work of people looking to use misleading examples instead of the common examples.

>o you belive, even if the speech were to rise to the level of abuse, it would be harmful?

This is again putting the cart before the horse. "if speech rises to the level of abuse..." assumes that speech is abuse, which it isn't.

[n4r9]

It is widely accepted that speech can be used to inflict emotional or psychological abuse.

You're very concentrated on people simply being "offended", as if the law can be used to prosecute you for once calling someone an idiot. It can't as far as I'm aware, and very few people want that.

Speech can be harmful if it deliberately and consciously exploits or invokes trauma, undermines identity, or inflicts significant anxiety, depression or PTSD. Intimidation and harassment are often carried out via speech. It is illegal in most states if carried out on the basis of race, religion, colour or sexual orientation.

Again, my point is that there is a grey area around the line where speech becomes harmful and ought to be censored. The problem is that we don't have a coherent definition to determine where exactly the lines is in that grey area, and John Stuart Mill didn't either.

[ImPostingOnHN]

It seems that our fundamental disagreement is that you do not believe speech can cause harm OR rise to the level of abuse, something which, I as a random dude disagree with, but moreover, people qualified to evaluate harm to people disagree with, and the people who wrote our laws criminalizing multiple forms of harmful speech disagree with.

So, I guess nothing really left to discuss, unless you want to make a convincing case in advocacy of your position.