My free speech, your hate speech

[ArMaP]

I hate all kinds of censorship, and I hate generalisations, so when entity A decides that entity B should have a different treatment because A thinks B has some opinion about something, I think that's wrong, and it applies to everyone.

In this particular case, what I find interesting is that the PEN's ‘A Silent Moratorium’ article states "since Oct. 7, 2023", which makes the connection to the attack against Israel and not to Israel's response, which sounds a little like the "silent moratorium" was part of the attacks and has nothing to do with the response.

Basically, I see it as politics, so I hate it.

PS: yes, I hate many things, but is just a mild hate, s step above a "don't like".

[quintessentone]

Well spotted. The fact is, I'm not at all sure what the correct ethical position should be. I have strong feelings on the subject of artistic freedom of expression, but my feelings should not dictate my views – or should they?

I thought it might clarify my own thinking to see what emerges from the discussion. I certainly shall state what I think at some point, but not just yet. If you want to reserve your own opinions also, by all means do so.

Just like you, this is a topic that I consider very complex and I can't make a concrete stand on any one side. I am all for free speech and free expression, sure, but at what cost to others? Is there even one correct ethical position?

[andy06shake]

Just like you, this is a topic that I consider very complex and I can't make a concrete stand on any one side. I am all for free speech and free expression, sure, but at what cost to others? Is there even one correct ethical position?

There may not be a single correct ethical position.

Free speech is supposed to promote open debate and accountability.

But unrestricted.

Or in the mouths of manipulative lunatics.

Those who wish to use hate-filled words as weapons, it can also enable serious harm.

And i think history clearly illustrates that fact.

The cost, or so it seems to me, is having to place narrow limits where it directly threatens other's rights or safety.

[Astyanax]

Put it this way Astyanax, take away the law of the land, and it all falls apart.

True – although fair and effective enforcement is just as important, otherwise the law fails.

But this is not in itself a satisfactory answer. It begs the question of whence the law itself derives (i) its authority and (ii) its legitimacy.

Consider China, North Korea or Saudi Arabia. With the usual carve-outs for elite corruption, these are countries where the law of the land is rarely questioned. Crime is low, the populace is docile and orderly. But are their laws good laws?

Then, too, a nation of laws is nothing without the consent of the governed. We are seeing this right now in the USA; the Republic is imploding because political division has turned so many of its citizens into scofflaws and refuseniks – starting with the head of state, the biggest scofflaw and refusenik of the lot.

It’s easy to agree on the importance of laws, Andy. Justifying and enforcing the actual statutes, there’s the difficulty.

[Astyanax]

I hate all kinds of censorship, and I hate generalisations, so when entity A decides that entity B should have a different treatment because A thinks B has some opinion about something, I think that's wrong, and it applies to everyone.

Thank you, Armap, for a thoughtful reply that invokes some of the human consequences of the question. Perhaps we were getting a bit too abstract with all this talk of ethics and legality.

You are implying, it seems to me, that the law should apply to everyone in the same way, and should be enforced equally. When you say ‘I hate generalisations’, I suppose (correct me if I am wrong) that you mean you hate general judgements about groups of people made on some common characteristic, such as their sex, race, religion, language, occupation or political opinion.

If so, you have saved me the trouble of answering quintessentone’s rhetorical enquiry.
 

Is there even one correct ethical position?

However, your reply doesn’t make clear why the law should apply equally to all. In fact, some might say that your opposition to all generalisation implies that the law should not be applied generally, but that special consideration should be given to each individual case.

What happens if we accept this? Do we find ourselves making a case for affirmative action, or what our American friends like to call DEI? Do we fall into the danger of privileging some while depriving others of their rights? Many people would say so: do we not often hear talk about conspiracies to elevate nonwhites above whites and immigrants above natives, using DEI or something like it as an instrument of oppression?

And what are ‘rights’, anyway? And are they natural or conferred? Do they even exist?

Then again, what happens if we refuse to give any consideration to individual cases? If we argued that everyone should be treated with strict equality, would that be humane? Don’t the great religions (from which most nations ultimately derive their laws) enjoin us to show mercy and charity, to show (that is to say) special consideration for the disadvantaged?

Don’t the courts exist precisely because the law cannot be applied blindly to individual cases?

Even Marx famously acknowledged the importance of considering the individual when we construct our laws: ‘to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.’

So you see, it is not nearly as simple as your post at first seems to suggest. Your further thoughts on the matter would be greatly welcome.

[ArMaP]

You are implying, it seems to me, that the law should apply to everyone in the same way, and should be enforced equally. When you say ‘I hate generalisations’, I suppose (correct me if I am wrong) that you mean you hate general judgements about groups of people made on some common characteristic, such as their sex, race, religion, language, occupation or political opinion.

That's correct, but I was not talking just about laws, I was also talking about how society, organisations and individuals should act. We should not base out actions and reactions just on what we feel but mostly on what can be proved as a fact, if those actions and reactions may affect other people (most of our decisions affect other people, even if we don't see them like that at first).

However, your reply doesn’t make clear why the law should apply equally to all. In fact, some might say that your opposition to all generalisation implies that the law should not be applied generally, but that special consideration should be given to each individual case.

Isn't that how the application of the law works? Tribunals decide not only if someone is guilty or not but also the sentence, taking in consideration (or at least they are supposed to) the specifics of each case.

What happens if we accept this? Do we find ourselves making a case for affirmative action, or what our American friends like to call DEI? Do we fall into the danger of privileging some while depriving others of their rights? Many people would say so: do we not often hear talk about conspiracies to elevate nonwhites above whites and immigrants above natives, using DEI or something like it as an instrument of oppression?

From my point of view, equal means equal, not "adjusted" by some coefficient, so everyone should be given the same opportunities and treatment.
Why do things like "affirmative action" and "DEI" were created? They weren't created to solve the original problem of equal treatment, they were created to make some kind of artificial and arbitrary compensation.

And what are ‘rights’, anyway? And are they natural or conferred? Do they even exist?

I don't see rights as being natural, I see them as part of every society, and that's why different places have different rights. "Natural rights" is just like saying we have the right to breath, like all other living creatures.

Then again, what happens if we refuse to give any consideration to individual cases? If we argue that everyone should be treated with strict equality, would that be humane? Don’t the great religions (from which most nations ultimately derive their laws) enjoin us to show mercy and charity, to show (that is to say) special consideration for the disadvantaged?

If we think and act like everyone should be treated with strict equality then our actions (and our laws) should reflect that be less strict, as we are not living in a black/white world like politicians like us to believe.

As for religions, I only know Christianity and a little about Islam, but I suppose that's right.
As a kind of a PS, Portuguese law is a mix from Roman law, Visigoth law and Catholic Church law, with the laws that were added mostly after the end of the royal system (and the subsequent anti-religion increase).

Don’t the courts exist precisely because the law cannot be applied blindly to individual cases?

See above.

Even Marx famously acknowledged the importance of considering the individual when we construct our laws: ‘to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.’

That's a little more specific than what I was thinking about.

So you see, it is not nearly as simple as your post at first seems to suggest. Your further thoughts on the matter would be greatly welcome.

It never is. Reality's interconnections make things extremely complex as soon as we start looking at things in more detail, but I suppose that's one of the things that makes life interesting.

[andy06shake]

It’s easy to agree on the importance of laws, Andy. Justifying and enforcing the actual statutes, there’s the difficulty.

Oh, it's worse than that, Astyanax, a lot of Police who are there to enforce the laws, don't even understand them in their entirety.

Which can make enforcement somewhat problematic at best.

And I'm led to believe that can be as true across the pond as it is over here, not quite sure what it's like in China...

From a personal perspective i would suggest that it simply helps to know right from wrong.

Our laws matter because they provide order, but legality alone doesn't guarantee morality or justice.

As to those other places, laws being good, i imagine it's good for those in power, and bad for those that break them.