-
I have always thought that the social and political theory of John Mill (whose ideas were hugely influential in the US Constitution amendments) to be very useful in these cases (emphasis mine):
" He concluded that, except for speech that is immediately physically harmful to others (like the classic example of the false cry of "fire" in a crowded theater, or the incitement of violence towards others, lynching and so forth), no expression of opinion, written or oral, ought to be prohibited. Truth can only emerge from the clash of contrary opinions; therefore, robust debate must be permitted. This "adversarial" theory of the necessary nature of the search for truth and this insistence on the free marketplace of ideas have become central elements of U.S. free speech theory."
Gndlf-
Truth can only emerge from the clash of contrary opinions
This assumes that everyone is speaking from the same platform at the same volume, which they're not.
-
Fair enough but I don't think we should be dependent on the musings from a bygone era where racially perjorative slang was both acceptable and common place. Our understanding now of psychology, mental health, stress and emotional distress is significantly further advanced from those times. Take for instance some of the recent cases of online bullying that have led to the suicide of the victims. Are you just going to prohibit the final missive of the last tormentor that can demonstrably have prompted the suicide but not all of those that preceded it because severe psychological harm is an acceptable consequence of freedom of speech? After all, not one physical blow was struck before the last one, albeit at the victim's own hands.
And I'm definitely in favour of a clash of contrary opinions. However, to take as an example, "all them musrats want to do is blow us up" vs. "not all Muslims are terrorists" are clashing contrary opinions that fall very short of the other bit you should have highlighted; robust debate. Without that bar to mudslinging asshats, the truth you placed so much importance on is perpetually obscured. -
This is the harm principle. It's claimed, by him, to be an objective principle. The problem is that he never satisfactorily defines harm, and this we are returned to a position in which someone in a position of authority decides subjectively on a particular case.
Mill wrote:
"An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard."
If we follow this logic we get to strange places (perhaps banning the publication of images of Mohammed because it may insight violence a la Charlie Hebdo).
spiderpie
The_Seldom_Killer
So what is it then? Because I can't see how not having a right to not be insulted doesn't essentially condone and normalise abuse. How exactly are you reconciling that this isn't the case?
And yes, I am conflating abuse and insult. I accept that my opinion is probably very biased on that though. Working in domestic abuse it's, perhaps, difficult not to see how insults are a form of abuse. If you want to expand on why you think they aren't then I would be quite interested to hear what you have to say.