-
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.
The_Seldom_Killer-
I think one of the most persuasive elements of Millian philosophy is that despite it's age it can still be as relevant today as when he was writing. You are right that what was acceptable in the 19th century is seen today as totally unacceptable in the same way as perhaps eating meat today might be anathema in 100 years.
Take your bullying example. There is no doubt that online bullying is not only pervasive but a serious problem leading to innumerable suicides, sadly more often than not young children. Speech that drives others to suicide is immediately physically harmful to others and therefore falls the wrong side of the line. No physical harm is needed to fall foul. Online bullying clearly can incite harm and should rightly be prohibited (I think it already is an illegal offense?).
When talking about robust debate (and also in reply to @spiderpie), asshats saying 'all mussies are terrorists' or, in this instance, challenging and innocent bystander on something so far removed from her life that it is almost tragic, is obviously beyond stupid. What social media brings these people is a platform for their views to be projected across the globe. The beauty is that their bigoted stupidity is so easily parried by the millions of people are able to react on (in this case) Twitter. Look at all the amazing replies this buffoon got! His bigotry countered by phenomenal solidarity. That is how you defend against and defeat racism, homophobia, bigotry and bullying. The truth, which so often needs defending, won hands down today.
Freedom of speech is emotive, at the very least I think we can agree that this skid stain got his just desserts.
Gndlf
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."