Hateful speech

[23:22]	<Azarius>	Oh, LadyMarmalade, you didn't tell us much about your political and philosophical views apart from your thoughts on affirmative action
[23:23]	<LadyMarmalade>	Azarius: Hi.
[23:23]	<LadyMarmalade>	I'm not sure I have many..
[23:24]	<LadyMarmalade>	Azarius: I think about freedom of speech. It is really restricted..
[23:24]	<LadyMarmalade>	Doesn't feel like freedom at all
[23:24]	<LadyMarmalade>	So this way the state controls what is ok to say and what is not
[23:25]	<LadyMarmalade>	So the law itself is wrong formulated
[23:25]	<LadyMarmalade>	(I am law student btw, not sure if I mentioned it)
[23:25]	<Azarius>	Yes, you did
[23:26]	<LadyMarmalade>	Ok
[23:26]	<Azarius>	And wait, I'm not sure I follow... are you saying you support freedom of speech being restricted by the state or are you (rightly) saying that this is the case right now everywhere
[23:27]	<LadyMarmalade>	I am saying that there is no freedom of speech when the state can restrict it
[23:27]	<Azarius>	This is indeed true... do you think this state of affairs ought to change?
[23:28]	<LadyMarmalade>	I tend to think so
[23:28]	<LadyMarmalade>	But I also think of what the consequences will be
[23:29]	<Azarius>	<LadyMarmalade> I tend to think so <-- I would agree
[23:29]	<LadyMarmalade>	So either don't lie to people by convincing them that they have freedom of speech or let people have it
[23:30]	<Azarius>	My personal opinion is very strongly in favour of absolute freedom of speech, I spend quite a bit of time actively defending it
[23:31]	<lpf>	do you consider certain types of speech to be harmful?
[23:33]	<Azarius>	Good question, but difficult to answer because of the semantics involved - luckily I have a relevant flowchart :3
[23:33]	<Azarius>	http://postimg.org/image/qv327f9un/full/
[23:38]	<LadyMarmalade>	There is a Swedish case, about young men spreading their opinion about homosexuals and saying that it is deviant sexual orientation and that homosexuality only defuses pedophilia
[23:38]	<LadyMarmalade>	Guys got two years of prison
[23:39]	<Azarius>	That's ridiculous... if only people putting in jail actually resulted in less bigotry and less stupidity, triggering progress would be so much more simple
[23:39]	<lpf>	you know i'm not 'libertarian' on my stances because i defend liberties. i happen to pick the side which i believe is the most beneficial to society.
[23:39]	<Azarius>	*putting people
[23:39]	<lpf>	(unrelated)
[23:40]	<Azarius>	The funds used to prosecute vocal bigots should go towards eradicating ignorance and misery (which feed into each other)
[23:41]	<Azarius>	lpf: as one who believes in consequentialist (preference-utilitarian) ethics, I agree with this rationale
[23:43]	<lpf>	i think that when a nation accepts to live under a state's authority, it should be ready to give up liberties for the common good.
[23:44]	<Azarius>	To some degree, that is implied by the structure of any society, regardless of whether or not it has an instution that can be called a government
[23:45]	<lpf>	per the harm assessments on drugs you posted the other day, i would probably tend to defend some illegal drugs, but alcohol alters judgment and irremediably put unrelated people in danger. anyway, b regarding free speech.
[23:45]	<Azarius>	*institution
[23:45]	<lpf>	what is the status of death threats in the debate?
[23:46]	<lpf>	and all sorts of verbal abuse truthfully.
[23:46]	<Azarius>	They should never be illegal in and of themselves, but if there is reasonable suspicion that the person will act upon them, law enforcement should keep watch
[23:47]	<lpf>	ah, nice.
[23:47]	<lpf>	i think death threats are harmful.
[23:47]	<lpf>	as well as verbal abuse.
[23:47]	<lpf>	such as bullying.
[23:48]	<Azarius>	All potentially harmful things should not be illegal... my main argument here is that there is no plausible law that would ban such behaviour without entailing widespread censorship of significant, legitimate speech as collateral
[23:49]	<lpf>	potentially serious death threats can cause emotional distress in spite of the flow chart addressing a rather different subject. they can also make people hire bodyguards, making them lose money.
[23:49]	<Azarius>	Harassment or intimidation should be illegal under certain circumstances, but this should never have anything to do whatsoever with the semantic content of the speech
[23:50]	<Azarius>	And everything to do with "repeatedly disturbing the peace of another person after this person has expressed discontent"
[23:51]	<Azarius>	Law enforcement should keep watch against "potentially serious death threats", therefore precluding the need for bodyguards
[23:52]	<Azarius>	As for the "emotional distress" part, see what I said about harassment and intimidation
[23:52]	<lpf>	in any case, your point is that harmful speech should be banned if there is a way to ban it without collateral.
[23:52]	<lpf>	i'll grant all ambiguous forms of harmful speech
[23:52]	<lpf>	but what about death threats?
[23:52]	<Azarius>	What about parody?
[23:52]	<lpf>	what is the significant collateral of banning death threats?
[23:53]	<Azarius>	The overwhelming majority of death threats aren't serious
[23:53]	<lpf>	parody falls under the ambiguous forms i grant
[23:53]	<Azarius>	Any blanket ban of death threats would open the path towards banning of legitimate speech falling under ambiguous categoriesx
[23:53]	<Azarius>	*-x
[23:54]	<lpf>	because they aren't fulfilled doesn't mean they do not put stress on the recipient.
[23:55]	<lpf>	heh.
[23:55]	<lpf>	you know we could be having the discussion backwards.
[23:56]	<lpf>	'we should keep parodies of islam banned! allowing parodies? what next? allowing death threats?'
[23:56]	<LadyMarmalade>	But who on earth threatens like that?
[23:57]	<Azarius>	Indeed, note how you could well argue that those parodies of Islam put undue stress on some recipients
[23:57]	<Azarius>	LadyMarmalade: trolls and idiots?
[23:57]	<LadyMarmalade>	It never prevents someone to threaten even today
[23:57]	<LadyMarmalade>	Hmm
[23:57]	<lpf>	what do you mean when you ask who threatens like that?
[23:58]	<LadyMarmalade>	I mean that normal people will not threaten and nothing will stop idiots from threatening
[23:58]	<LadyMarmalade>	But what do you mean by allowing death threats?
[23:58]	<LadyMarmalade>	It's like writing it in news papers?
[23:59]	<lpf>	i think that most normal people should not be concerned by death threats. but famous people are legitimate in taking them seriously.
[23:59]	<Azarius>	Oh and yes, logically speaking, "harmful speech should be banned if there is a way to ban it without collateral"... but however logically conceivable this may be, it is linguistically impossible in practice
[23:59]	<Azarius>	Famous people should surely benefit from the protection of law enforcement in such cases
[00:00]	<lpf>	well ladymarmalade, what about letters?
[00:00]	<lpf>	or even emails.
[00:01]	<LadyMarmalade>	lpf: But what prevents someone to send a death threatening email to someone today?
[00:01]	<Azarius>	Through, say, Tor and hushmail!
[00:02]	<LadyMarmalade>	lpf: Di you imply that by allowing it I or you would go and send a threatening email to someone? So only law prevents us?
[00:03]	<Azarius>	^
[00:03]	<lpf>	i don't understand. caught sender of death threats should receive adequate punishment, isn't that enough?
[00:03]	<LadyMarmalade>	I see..
[00:04]	<Azarius>	No, of course not, it would be virtually useless for anything but either trivial or ambiguous cases
[00:04]	<Azarius>	And therefore the collateral would be vastly greater than any likely benefits
[00:04]	<lpf>	i don't know what is ambiguous with death threats.
[00:05]	<lpf>	i'm more than willing to give up my right to do facetious death threats in order to be safer from serious ones.
[00:05]	<LadyMarmalade>	That most people usually don't mean to kill even though they threaten
[00:06]	<Azarius>	Serious death threats are nigh nonexistent
[00:06]	<Azarius>	People who want to kill usually don't threaten
[00:06]	<LadyMarmalade>	Azarius: I agree
[00:06]	<lpf>	yes, but i don't consider unfruitful death threats as a collateral.
[00:07]	<lpf>	similarly, i am ready to give up on my rights to send a moot death threat.
[00:07]	<Azarius>	I think you vastly overestimate the harm done by moot death threats
[00:08]	<Azarius>	I would not be willing to give up that right, at the very least because anything that hints towards a censorship culture is detrimental to society on the long run
[00:08]	<Azarius>	People should not rely on government to prevent them from saying or hearing stupid things
[00:09]	<lpf>	i find the fear speculative and superstitious.
[00:09]	<Azarius>	Oh, but if we agree that death threats are harmful, what about every other kind of threat?
[00:10]	<Azarius>	I find the answer to be entirely rational grounds for the fear
[00:17]	<lpf>	so, threatening to slap someone?
[00:18]	<Azarius>	Would you be willing to give up your right to threaten any illegal activity?
[00:18]	<Azarius>	*to engage in
[00:19]	<lpf>	give up my right to engage in illegal activity?
[00:19]	<lpf>	lol
[00:19]	<lpf>	i'll rephrase that myself
[00:19]	<Azarius>	to threaten to engage in >.>
[00:20]	<LadyMarmalade>	Azarius: That was complicated
[00:20]	<LadyMarmalade>	Not sure I understood it
[00:20]	<lpf>	i am willing to give up my right to give ill-intended threats.
[00:20]	<lpf>	intentioned, whatever.
[00:21]	<lpf>	ill-intentioned.
[00:21]	<Azarius>	And how are we supposed to distinguish between ill-intended threats and other threats in any consistent, legally relevant sense?
[00:22]	<Azarius>	What about, say, buying detailed instructions to engage in criminal activity? (e.g. Anarchist's Cookbook and the like)
[00:24]	<Azarius>	What about the fact that the vast majority (and an increasing proportion) of death threats are sent in such a way as to make them untraceable?
[00:24]	<lpf>	the example of buying instructions to engage in criminal activity isn't a threat. the problem is whether something illegal is going to happen or not. when i say ill-intended, i mean of which the purpose is to harm someone's wellbeing, regardless of whether i intend to fulfil the threat.
[00:25]	<Azarius>	How can you say that the purpose of instructions to engage in criminal activity isn't to harm someone's wellbeing?
[00:26]	<lpf>	again, that's a different issue. the question is whether it is made in order for criminal deeds to be performed, not whether it's going to put stress on someone
[00:26]	<lpf>	but it's related on the question of free speech in general.
[00:26]	<Azarius>	My argument is purely on the grounds of "free speech in general"
[00:27]	<LadyMarmalade>	lpf: I understand your point too, of course threatening someone will harm his well being
[00:27]	<Azarius>	Again, how is that different from how edgy parody harms the well-being of its targets?
[00:28]	<Azarius>	Can you seriously claim that Dan Savage's "santorum" campaign didn't harm the well-being of Rick Santorum?
[00:29]	<Azarius>	As for the issue being w"hether it is made in order for criminal deeds to be performed", this seems to contradict "i mean of which the purpose is to harm someone's wellbeing, regardless of whether i intend to fulfil the threat"
[00:30]	<lpf>	on the contrary, i highlighted that to point out why the matters are different and can be judged distinctively.
[00:30]	<Azarius>	I don't see how
[00:30]	<lpf>	also, i think death threats can be separated from other forms of discourse.
[00:31]	<Azarius>	I don't, they are highly ambiguous
[00:31]	<lpf>	i think the parody of a religion enters the discussion of knowledge which should be freely debated.
[00:32]	<Azarius>	"I will kill you tomorrow", "You will die soon", "A car will hit you tomorrow", "You really should die a painful death soon"
[00:32]	<Azarius>	Those could all be semantically equivalent depending on context
[00:33]	<lpf>	i don't think the last one is a death threat...
[00:33]	<Azarius>	As for "knowledge which should be freely debated", I don't think there is any legitimate way to distinguish between that and other "types of knowledge"
[00:34]	<lpf>	sorry
[00:34]	<lpf>	enters the discussion of knowledge; which should be freely debated.
[00:34]	<lpf>	knowledge in general should be freely debatable.
[00:34]	<LadyMarmalade>	Death threat is something a person would do, to wish someone would die is not a threat
[00:35]	<Azarius>	LadyMarmalade, again, it depends on the context
[00:35]	<LadyMarmalade>	Azarius: I can't see how..
[00:36]	<Azarius>	An extreme example, for purely illustrative purposes, would be how a soldier might say that to a prisoner of war
[00:37]	<Azarius>	I surely don't think it should be the business of law or government to distinguish between what "enters the discussion of knowledge" and what does not
[00:37]	<LadyMarmalade>	I can tell you about an event: I and my brother went to dentist and she took really high price for the treatment, of which we were not aware if
[00:37]	<LadyMarmalade>	of
[00:38]	<LadyMarmalade>	My brother then got mad and said he'd come next day and talk to her chef
[00:38]	<lpf>	i'm going to kill her!
[00:38]	<LadyMarmalade>	No
[00:38]	<LadyMarmalade>	But he was screaming
[00:38]	<LadyMarmalade>	She reported us to police
[00:38]	<LadyMarmalade>	Guess what
[00:38]	<LadyMarmalade>	Police did nothing
[00:39]	<LadyMarmalade>	She said we threaten her
[00:40]	<Azarius>	Hehe
[00:44]	<LadyMarmalade>	terms like threat, discrimination etc should not be used lightly
[00:46]	<LadyMarmalade>	but people do and manipulate with these words
[00:46]	<Azarius>	<Azarius> Oh and yes, logically speaking, "harmful speech should be banned if there is a way to ban it without collateral"... but however logically conceivable this may be, it is linguistically impossible in practice <-- This is why that is the case
[00:47]	<lpf>	so would you ban parodies of religion if it were possible to linguistically discriminate them from other kind of speech?
[00:47]	<lpf>	if not, you also perceive a fundamental difference between threats and parodies...
[00:50]	<Azarius>	I do perceive essential differences (otherwise using two different words would likely be superfluous), starting with the fact that a parody should be interpreted as humorous by at least some people, while a threat is usually an edgy way to express discontent and nothing more
[00:50]	<lpf>	ambiguity is par for the course with most illegal activities, i don't think that thorough case by case examination is impossible or impractical (just like it isn't with other crimes)
[00:52]	<Azarius>	Semantic ambiguity (within speech-related "crimes") is on a whole other level as material ambiguity (with any other crime)