[Defletter]

Not to be glib, but yes, that's what Public Order Offences are. Society and law exists so that we can co-exist, and people going out of their way to be offensive and provocative by, say, setting things on fire in a public space and saying hateful things... yeah, that's eminently antisocial. If you want to frame this as criminality coming from mere knowledge, you can do that, but you're obscuring context... you're literally doing the thing. Cringe.

[brigandish]

Offense is taken, not given. Unless it's harassment or assault (both forms of violence) then the response to speech should always be either speech in return, or to ignore it, not to use violence - either through the state's monopoly, in this case via the police, or through vigilante action.

To say using one's freedom of conscience and freedom of expression is beyond the childish "cringe", it's illiberal, dogmatic, and authoritarian.

[Defletter]

This kind of purist ideology is fine in a perfect world, but the reality is that peaceful co-existence requires intolerance of intolerance. And let's be honest here, you do agree with limiting speech: you just mentioned speech being used as "harassment" and "assault". Would you mind explaining how speech could be harassment and assault and who would decide that? And I'm presuming that you're okay with libel and slander being decided in a Court of Law and enforceable through other institutions of State?

We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line. It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.

[brigandish]

> let's be honest here, you do agree with limiting speech

Let's not introduce a straw man: I haven't claimed I'm for unrestricted speech; and let's also not introduce a Nirvana fallacy[0], my position is thus because the world is imperfect, hence freedom of speech is necessary to improve it and as mitigation against its misfortunes and burdens. It actively reduces violence by providing a better way to "win" an argument.

> Would you mind explaining how speech could be harassment and assault and who would decide that?

Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand:

> A person commits an assault if he performs an act (which does not for this purpose include a mere omission to act) by which he intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

Spoken threats are an obvious one, so is shouting at someone in the manner that would lead a reasonable person to feel threatened.

Harassment is also easy to understand:

> The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 indicates that someone’s actions amount to harassment when they make the victim feel distressed, humiliated, threatened or fearful of further violence. The main goal of harassment is to persuade victims either not to do something that they are entitled or required to do or to do something that they are not obliged to do. Actions listed under the Protection from Harassment Act include, but are not limited to:

> phone calls > letters > emails > visits > stalking > verbal abuse of any kind, including on social media > threats > damage to property > bodily harm

You can see several types of speech in there.

> And I'm presuming that you're okay with libel and slander being decided in a Court of Law

You're contradicting your earlier straw man now, you have no such presumption. I do, however, support defamation as a civl tort (though not how it is currently instituted in the UK, the US has a much saner implementation).

> We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line.

I'm glad you've caught up.

> It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.

Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people, and you're justifying it. So the argument goes: their offence is justified, their violence is inevitable, hence, we should stop the speech.

Have you considered allowing the speech and punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings? Would that not be peaceful co-existence?

> the reality is that peaceful co-existence requires intolerance of intolerance

Popper defined, in his "paradox of tolerance" two simple tests for telling an intolerant group:

- They shun debate.

- They turn to violence.

You've picked the wrong group to criminalise.

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. - The Open Society and Its Enemies

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

[Defletter]

> Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand

As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society. Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation. How hate speech in defined in law very much mirrors the definitions of harassment and assault (which you appear to have no issue with): it is not mere offence and intent is necessary.

> you have no such presumption

Don't I? Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.

> Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people

This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence. It's also an extremely American phrase used there to dismiss calls for gun control. I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.

> Have you considered allowing the speech and punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?

Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.

> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

It's interesting that you would quote this because I very much agree: for as long as rational argument is able to counter intolerance, that's all we need, and anything further is not just unnecessary but detrimental. But when rational argument becomes ineffective, as we've seen, then rational argument cannot be solely relied upon. In an age of misinformation and disinformation, the notion of 'just add more speech, that'll solve everything' is not only exceptionally naive but demonstrably ignorant. One need only look at America to see what being the freeze peachiest country gets you. The UK and the rest of Europe have speech restrictions like hate-speech laws because we have intimate knowledge of the devastation of unrestrained hate. Hate cannot be reliably restrained by speech. You may find a case here and there, but it cannot stop a mob.

---

If I may make a comparison here, the murder of the CEO of United Healthcare has seemingly opened many people's eyes to society's tolerance of state-sanction death through delays, denials, and deposals, compared to society's extreme horror at a rich person getting gunned down. And yes, them being rich matters: I'm reminded of the sheer difference in effort there was between finding the doomed Titan submersible and finding the lost workers from the Francis Scott Key Bridge collision and collapse. Notice also Mangione's perp walk: you don't get that kind of display when the gunned-down victim is poor.

What I'm getting at here is that many people in society turn a blind eye to the death and misery caused by the system. He's not able to afford his medicine and died? He should've picked a better healthcare package or changed providers. The system is given infinite grace. But when [allegedly] Mangione shot that CEO, the notion that there may have been any justification for it is out of the question. He is infinitely wrong. It was odd watching news coverage of the shooting and how they tip-toed around trying to talk about this, compared to the typical US brazenness with every other topic.

This is circling back to your "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to, and I'm probably right, but I very much feel like you're doing what I described above, here. It's giving "milkshakes are cement".

[brigandish]

> "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to

and

> Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.

Are the same question. His name is Moussa Kadri[0], the person who brandished the weapon (actus reus)in order to physically harm another (mens rea).

The man he attacked, the one whom you would criminalise, what was his mens rea?

> > Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand

Firstly, you've missed the point about that. It being an old law does not necessarily make it a good law (though it is), it means that a) that you should have heard of it, and b) it has a lot of case law, as I pointed out. That's who decides, precedent set by the common people using the common law.

> As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society.

Equivocation, and cowardice I might add, I won't see you banning a whole host of harmful material, like that which was burnt. Regardless, violence against people for exercising freedoms is harmful to society, which is why they're often talked about and pushed to become rights, they're that fundamental. Freedom of speech, expression, conscience and religion are liberal values that distinguish societies with them from those that don't have them, like ones with blasphemy laws.

> Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation.

We "moved on" from blasphemy laws by relentlessly criticising, arguing with, mocking and deriding those who supported them, along with their ideas. Sometimes that speech was free, sometimes it wasn't.

Now, blasphemy laws are back, increasingly, that is the point. We haven't moved on if we're slowly reintroducing them, and regardless of that, freedom of speech protects minorities from attack and dehumanisation. Not only do societies with more freedom of speech have greater safety and opportunity for minorities than those without, freedom of speech is a right that the rich and powerful almost always have, giving it to the poor, weak, or just to any individual gives them strength - the individual being the ultimate minority.

> > you have no such presumption

> Don't I?

Quite obviously not.

> <u>Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.</u>

Arrogance isn't overconfidence, it's not listening, which is why you've repeated the straw man from your previous reply. If a purist is one who supports the laws of assault, harassment, and defamation while not criminalising other forms of speech, then I'm a purist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In fact, I support the burning of a Quran and its printing (even though it contains what you would deem hate speech, if you were to be principled about it).

> > Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people

> This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence.

The US defines the test for this as whether a threat is "credible" and "imminent" (see Brandenburg v. Ohio[1]). Very sensible.

> It's also an extremely American phrase

The logical form of an argument has Americanness? No, logical form can be removed from its original context and reapplied to other matters, as in this case - where does the responsibility lie, the victim, the inanimate object, or the attacker? Watch:

"He burnt a Quran, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?"

"She was on her own at night in a short skirt, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?" You'll find some justification for that in the Quran, so I shouldn't be surprised that you've taken the position you have.

> used there to dismiss calls for gun control.

They have gun control, it's all about where to draw the line ;) The UK government decided to take away the right to arm oneself for self defence, which is allowing them to continue to remove other rights. As Frederick Douglass wrote[2]:

“the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country”

> I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.

Challenging something can tame it. Not challenging it allows it to burn. As an example, due to blasphemy laws[3] and hate speech laws[4] in the Weimar Republic, the anti-semitism coming from the pulpit wasn't able to be challenged, and repression of the speech of national socialists also removed that chance, while affording them fame and access to two-tier justice:

> And while hate speech cases were prosecuted, the vast majority of assaults on Jews weren’t.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and isn't it also ironic that those who would want to institute "hate" speech laws the most, who hide behind them at the first hint of criticism, are the ones actually committing violence. Between knifing someone and burning a book, I know which needs to be criminalised. Why don't you? To quote from [4]:

“Where are your priorities, ladies and gentleman? You're giving away what's most precious in your society and you're giving it away without a fight, and you're even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it.

Shame on you while you do this.”

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r57n2qvzqo

[1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/incitement-to-immine...

[2] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/lobb-the-life-and-times-o...

[3] https://newrepublic.com/article/120519/tyranny-silence-how-o...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0

[Defletter]

It was already getting tiresome responding to you, but now that you're comparing harmful speech with the "but what was she wearing", I've about had enough. Let me know when a woman's short skirt leads to the systematic extermination of millions. It seems you have no comprehension that speech can be harmful, until suddenly it is (assault and harassment). Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again, see America). Have a nice day.