Thread: Violent rhetoric and the shooting in AZ

Originally Posted by Think

oh i understand the american attitude to free speech alright; but citizens of other western democracies borrow your words without borrowing the full implications of the principle, if you see what I mean; if I just put it in standard terms, non-Americans would tend to say "yeah I agree" out of familiarity and the vague sense that it is a postive thing rather than actual ideological commitment.

They broadly accept it... until it comes to unpleasantness that they don't want to have to deal with directly, so they just stuff that speech into a deep gulf and turn their backs towards it, pretending it never existed in the first place.

Ok, so "in the most extremely positive light possible" is overkill; my point is that there are two distinct forums in US civilisation, the forum of opinion and mad punditry, and the forum of reason, and the latter is mostly there to justify the structural relativism of the former.

I fail to see the distinction you're making here. First of all, you seem to think that the only way to show complete and utter disapproval of something is to completely suppress its expression. So whenever there's something being expressed that most of society detests, the answer is to attempt to start a campaign of book burning and thought policing?

Secondly, how would the typical restrictions on free speech in other democratic nations prevent "mad punditry" in most of the forms that exist in the US? Italy and Malta's only restriction on speech is that it can not "blaspheme," with Malta making special provisions for protecting Catholicism. Britain only bans speech which incites "racial hatred" or "religious hatred," and it's clear that this law is applied only selectively, as mulahs can say what they will about the West but that Dutch MP was banned on entering Britain for his albeit assinine opinion on what's to be done with the Dutch Muslim minority. Let's not forget that Thatcher imposed a ban on Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adam's voice from the late 80's to mid to late 90's. Of course the BBC found ways around this, such as using actors to read Gerry Adam's comments on the air.

Germany has some of the most extensive and spelled-out restrictions of speech. You can't insult the state or the president, deny the Holocaust, use the Swastika engage in hate speech, etc. However, again there isn't really anything here that would really bar much of the extreme punditry from happening.

As I said, most of these laws don't pertain to "civil discourse" or anything like it, as I feel you were implying. Rather they restrict speech on things the government does not "like" or does not want to deal with, and this is precisely what Americans want to prevent from happening.

I will add that "slander" and "libel" are illegal in the US with provisions exonerating the media. This is very similar to most slander and libel laws in most other Western democracies. There are also out-dated obscenity laws on the books that are never enforced anymore.

Of course some democrats will respond with "Republicans might as well have pulled the trigger themselves" and republicans will joust back with "are you calling for restrictions on freedom of speech? this was a madman and we didn't mean it that way, obviously"; the punditry touches on the domain of reason for its justification, but it remains separate; and (my original point) if it comes to it, you'd probably rather reason away any connection between opinion and action than put any limits on what can be said.

Well fine, but I don't think I'm merely "reasoning away" any connection between what was said and this shooting. I don't think they are connected. However, yes, your point is taken. But even many of those who believe there is a connection aren't advocating placing any new limits on free speech.

Not only that, but most or all states have laws against "incitement to violence." So this speech would be against the law if it led directly to inciting this attack.

This has strengths, of course: I've already said it shows a strong cultural guarantee of particular principles, I would agree that it defends the culture against suppression of ideas (except by popular dislike); but it also has weaknesses: it leads to a cultural language dominated by relatively few universal principles or values (basically only those which are necessary for defence of the culture) and it leads to an opinion/reason gulf larger than in any other western democracy.

Well, actually America's guarantees of free speech are intended to prevent suppression due to "popular dislike" as well.

And again, your objections are disconnected from reality insofar as they pertain to America's relatively liberal free speech laws vis-a-vis those of other Western nations. Other democracies have liberal enough free speech that your objections to America's free speech would apply to every pretty much every other democracy in the world.

Also, I don't understand the nature of this "opinion/reason" gulf you speak of. Just because I detest an idea, I must seek to destroy or suppress every expression of it, or there is this gulf between opinion and reason you speak of? And again, if true, it would exist in every other democracy to nearly the same extent as it does in the US. Like I said, free speech restrictions in other democracies mostly is restricted to extremely tiny domains, either in principle or in practice, and these domains typically cover whatever the government does not wish to deal with at the time or goes against some specific specially protected group.