[Vision2020] Exploiting the Prophet

[Paul Rumelhart]

On 09/24/2012 09:06 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> This presents a dilemma. If speech can be limited, then how can there 
> be true freedom of expression? If speech can’t be limited, then we 
> have the right to be offensive (and worse). Forget about lecturing 
> your kids about civility since the Bill of Rights allows them to be 
> jackasses – and you wouldn’t want to limit the absolute freedoms in 
> the Bill of Rights, would you? Neither option is acceptable.

I would think it would be possible to teach your kids that while the 
Bill of Rights allows you to be a jackass, it's not a particularly 
respected activity. I wouldn't want my kid playing in mud, either, but I 
wouldn't think we should restricts everyone else's right to do so.


> Why is this important? We should stop offending others and stop 
> pretending that we have a right to do so. We wouldn’t tolerate this 
> behavior from our children, so why tolerate it from other adults? 
> Again, I’m mostly talking about cases of intentionally offensive 
> speech. Thus, the insult must be intentional and it must also be 
> offensive, meaning something that causes (in normal persons) 
> “repugnance, revulsion and shock” 
> (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/).

There are practical problems with this. How, exactly, could I possibly 
know what offends you without chancing an accidental offence? What if my 
very existence as a "climate science denier" offends you? Should I never 
mention the topic? Should I never speak up at all, because I would just 
remind you of that fact? Also, what if some people can't simply take the 
truth? I, for example, think that Mitt Romney is a rich man that is 
completely removed from what it means to be poor. What if he finds this 
idea repugnant, or is genuinely shocked that someone would think that? 
Should I keep my opinion to myself just in case he might find reason to 
be offended?

> Don’t limit free speech. I’m doing ethics and not suggesting more laws 
> in an already too law-governed society. Clearly some people (religious 
> and otherwise) are touchy and that shouldn’t stop you from speaking 
> your mind if you think you have something worth saying. Trying to 
> deliberately offend another is another matter. That is not “protected” 
> speech. It is merely a case of someone abusing actual rights in order 
> to do wrong.
>

How about we work instead on stopping people who have just been offended 
from thinking they have the right thereby to pick up weapons and assault 
a foreign embassy? That's a much cleaner line that was crossed, as 
opposed to trying to figure out exactly what it means to deliberately 
offend someone. If someone has the sudden urge to pick up an automatic 
weapon, an RPG, or even a brick and storm an embassy, maybe they should 
rethink their priorities.

It's like blaming the woman who offended her husband by talking back to 
him in a rude manner for the beating she received for it. Yes, I went 
there. The problem isn't the offensive speech. It's how they responded 
to it.

Paul