Are there dangerous ideas?

[jakelafort]

No Unseen you are wrong in asserting that in US nobody has wisdom to administer censorship nor do they have the authority.

The government has the authority and censors certain speech and limits other speech.

You have a bunch of junky slippery slope hypotheticals. It is really not that complicated. The government has a duty to protect its most vulnerable. When issues get nebulous it is the job of courts to make rulings interpreting the facts and applying those findings to the law. In certain instances there will be close calls whether speech ought to be protected or the gov can censor.

[—]

If we look at it from an epidemiological perspective, we could probably determine some ideas are quite dangerous. Perhaps under other circumstances, those same ideas wouldn’t be dangerous, but likewise covid-19 wouldn’t be dangerous if our biology were not what it was.

If you look at it as [idea + current conditions] then we’d certainly see ideas have wildly varying degrees of propagation, persistence, acceptance and conversion to action. That in turn will have wildly varying degrees of associated harm.

Even if we limited ourselves to a category of ideas such as political misinformation, there would be wildly vary impact. The idea of Latvian interference in the 2020 US election isn’t likely going to have the same rate of acceptance as the idea of Chinese or Russian interference. The idea that Biden’s campaign committed election fraud will have different conversions to action than the idea that Trump’s campaign committed election fraud.

We could also look at ideas in terms of pathology. If you tell me I am a worthless sack of shit, at this point in my life, I will shrug it off. It may not seem like a dangerous idea to present to me because I’m not likely to take it to hear, so to speak. Take a newborn child and tell them the same thing every day of their life at least once and it would probably have severe detrimental impacts as the idea increasingly took root. Or use me as an example again, and it’s not just you telling me I am a worthless sack of shit, but it is you, my loved ones, most of the people in my community, public figures I respect (etc.) and it is repeated. Whatever defences I have would probably wear thin and eventually break at some point.

Let’s say, under either approach to identifying dangerous ideas, we were able to find some. Should those ideas be censored? I don’t think there is a singular answer. Right now, Trump is promoting the idea that the election is being stolen despite having no evidence. Should that be censored?  First of all, can it be censored? Probably not. The idea didn’t start or end with him, and there is no practical way to muzzle him enough that he can’t still get out the newly mutated variant of the idea of Trump-approved electoral fraud belief.

From an epidemiological perspective, the idea of Trump-approved electoral fraud belief is probably dangerous. But it’s dangerous because of how the current population is primed. Censoring Trump becomes complicated because that act can deepen the conspiratorial concerns and martyr complexes of some. It can create uncomfortable precedent (from an uncomfortable president). That approach can have unintended consequences.

In this case, it would have been better had we done a better job inoculating the public with a higher degree of political literacy and stronger rational thinking skills. But then that leads us into a whole new territory of battling ideas, as it doesn’t seem to be an accident that so many people have such low levels of political literacy in the first place. Still, if the change can’t be made there, many ideas which might other wise have been fairly harmless will become dangerous.

The idea eating Tide Pods is a fun meme, on the other hand, probably would be better off being censored to some extent. We wouldn’t let Tide advertise them that way. Schools may prohibit passing such messages around. Certain content hosting platforms may end up with some liability for hosting that sort of content. Again, you can’t crush the idea completely, but you may be able to take it from the realm of ‘this is a fun attention-getting game’ (which may lead some to greatly under-appreciate the risk) to ‘this is how you show a disregard for your own health and safety’.

In the case of pathology of an idea like ‘you are a worthless sack of shit’, again, it really depends. When we use the example of repeatedly pushing that idea onto a child, it can be classified as abuse. That abuse should be prohibited. In the case of a you telling me I am a worthless sack of shit, it will probably be more harmful (and impractical) to police that in most cases than it would be for me to just deal with it. By ‘police’ I am literally talking about state-backed policing, not moderation on an internet forum. In terms of everyone in society telling me I am a worthless sack of shit, the conversation gets more convoluted. The idea itself shouldn’t be censored; however, certain measures such as prohibitions on slander, certain publication bans and non-disclosure agreements, some hate speech legislation is aimed at reducing the probable harm vilification* carries.

*Vilification ≠ ‘you are a worthless sack of shit’; however, it’s this example it’s the same type of harm.

[jakelafort]

Are there dangerous ideas?

YES! It is axiomatic. It is a consistent theme in history that humans are utterly flawed. Were it not so absolute dictators would be enlightened. The USA at its formation would not have been concerned about checks and balances in government. The endless liturgy including…who killed Christ…the Jews killed Christ would not have been a prime factor in the murder of millions of Jews throughout history. Ideas springing from social darwinism/eugenics would not have been a factor in…It is endless. One could go on all day and night. Bottom line…we humans are fucked in the head upside down. And it is the same thing that makes the notion of a free marketplace of ideas will result in good ideas prospering and bad ideas perishing into a joke. And it is the reason we need to censor some speech including invidious hate speech. Sure a coterie of homo sapiens…idk 1 to 5 percent would be golden without any censorship of speech and dangerous ideas would be far fewer and less dangerous. I am feelin a little dyspeptic…now back to the races..

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

No Unseen you are wrong in asserting that in US nobody has wisdom to administer censorship nor do they have the authority. The government has the authority and censors certain speech and limits other speech. You have a bunch of junky slippery slope hypotheticals. It is really not that complicated. The government has a duty to protect its most vulnerable. When issues get nebulous it is the job of courts to make rulings interpreting the facts and applying those findings to the law. In certain instances there will be close calls whether speech ought to be protected or the gov can censor.

I’m drawing a blank. How does the government intervene to enforce prior censorship of speech? What kind of speech? Can you give some examples of government prior censorship of speech?

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

@Jakelafort: I am feelin a little dyspeptic…now back to the races.

What are the odds of that?

[jakelafort]

Not sure i follow you, Unseen. Enforce prior censorship? Ha? Do you mean prior restraint?

The way things may play out so that first amendment free speech is invoked is as follows. Government passes a law making it illegal to burn the American flag. Joe Blow burns it and is prosecuted. Joe’s defense is first amendment is violated. Or Christian Identity Group announces it will come to a largely Black town have a parade in full hate group regalia and whoop some coon ass. Christian Identity Group appears as advertised and the police arrest the group. The members of the group allege illegal arrest based on notion that their first amendment free speech and assembly are violated.

[jakelafort]

Reg, after witnessing bomb odds on seeming non contenders in the breeders cup today i am not sure i can calculate those odds.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Not sure i follow you, Unseen. Enforce prior censorship? Ha? Do you mean prior restraint? The way things may play out so that first amendment free speech is invoked is as follows. Government passes a law making it illegal to burn the American flag. Joe Blow burns it and is prosecuted. Joe’s defense is first amendment is violated. Or Christian Identity Group announces it will come to a largely Black town have a parade in full hate group regalia and whoop some coon ass. Christian Identity Group appears as advertised and the police arrest the group. The members of the group allege illegal arrest based on notion that their first amendment free speech and assembly are violated.

Prior restraint on speech is how one defines “censorship” (“we won’t let you say that” / “We won’t let you print this”).

I don’t think it’s possible to do that in the United States. Even if you punish an offender, by that time the horse is out of the barn.

How do they do it in Europe? Davis, if you’re reading this? In the UK, Reg? (the UK being semi-Europe).

In the U.S., I don’t think there’s a legal way to stop a hate parade under the excuse “We don’t allow hate to be expressed on our streets.” It’s done, but other reasons are given, probably based on public security. Also, in order to keep it legal under the 1st Amendment, the township would probably be wise to provide an alternative venue for the expression to take place, or they might be sued.

[jakelafort]

Unseen i am foggy on it. Have not studied it since law school but i think prior restraint has a specific legal meaning and is not interchangeable with censorship. But i don’t feel like looking it up.

You are right about the way the supreme court ruled on the hate group. There is a case from Skokie Ill. which has/had a large percentage of Jews some of whom survived the holocaust. The Nazis did their thing and the Supremes said…yup that is kosher.

[TheEncogitationer]

Davis,

My sympathies go out to you on your experience with hate-speech and bullying.  I endured it myself in my Elementary and Junior High School years and still occasionally encounter it even as an adult.

My school experience I attribute to the compulsory schooling laws in the U.S. which force almost every child to endure anything the school inflicts on them for anywhere from 9-12 years depending on the State where you are a resident.  (I think Missouri is the only exception that has no compulsory schooling.)

My adult experiences I attribute to the adult products of such schools and of Christian religion.

Nevertheless, the solution to hate speech and bullying which is most compatible with free expression and free thought is to abolish compulsory schooling that supports such bullying.  Another solution is to exercise free speech and tell the knuckle-draggers and Jesus-Christers and anyone else who gives you shit to fuck off.

Oh that note, every Enlightenment movement in history that has brought the abolition of slavery, improved living conditions, Secularism, plus class, racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ equality all started with use of free expression.

And all of these movements were opposed by forces that sought to suppress free expression and thought themselves fit to arbitrate ideas.

Pro-slavery politicians in the U.S. censored circulation of Abolitionist literature through the Postal Service monopoly.  Pro-slavery rioters burned Elijah Lovejoy’s abolitionist printing press and murdered Lovejoy and his sons.

Opponents of gender equality passed The Comstock Act and forbade shipment of contraceptives and abortion information also through the Postal Service monopoly.

Activists in the Civil Rights Era fought against Jim Crow laws in newspapers, books, music, drama, radio, television, and relentless petitioning and demonstrations.  Some even withdrew children from segregated government schools and formed storefront “Freedom Schools” to counteract racism in young minds.

LGBTQ+ people have been censored from expressing their sexual identities by anti-pornography laws and campaigns to suppress and destroy ‘obscene’ and ‘degenerate’ art.  (‘Degenerate’ was the Nazi’s favorite term for art made by Homosexuals, Jews, and others they deemed inferior or evil.)  Progress for LGBTQ+ came only when censorship was curbed and abolished.

The Religious Right in the U.S. even tried censoring the Internet via The Communications Decency Act but was struck down unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court.  This ruling meant victory for all minority viewpoints.

The solution to injustice and cruelty anywhere is not to suppress ideas, but to expose bad ideas, express better ideas, and fight against their censorship.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by TheEncogitationer.

[jakelafort]

Encogitationer, do you want to protect invidious hate speech?

[TheEncogitationer]

Fellow Unbelievers,

Here below is an example of what happens when the law tries to criminalize motives and thoughts instead of criminal acts against Life, Liberty, and Property.

The article is a few years old, but the idea has come up again in the middle of the unrest in the U.S.:

Texas Made Attacking Cops A Hate Crime; These States Could Be Next

https://www.newsweek.com/police-hate-crime-laws-blue-lives-matter-texas-627736

While I am against the “defund and abolish the police” movements, and while I respect all law enforcers who “Protect and Serve” and respect Constitutional boundaries, I see real problems with this:

Say you have a broken tail light and a police officer pulls you over.  The officer gives you your citation, you blaspheme under your breath, the officer hears it and perceives that you are giving him or her a cross look.

Couldn’t this officer not only charge you with a broken tail light, but a “hate crime” against police as well?  If there is both a Federal and a State law against “hate crimes” against police, could the officer charge you with two “hate crimes?”

And if the officer is also a member of a “protected class” under regular Federal and State “hate crime” laws, could the officer charge you with a total of four “hate crimes?_

And if an FBI Agent of a “protected class” is on a ride-along with the officer and perceives a slight, could you be facing  eight charges of “hate crimes” on top of the broken tail light?

And is The Count from Seseme Street lurking somewhere laughing?

If motives and thoughts can be made crimes, then so also can inferred, imputed, imagined, and even manufactured motives and thoughts.

The only ways to establish motives and thoughts is through testimony or through an Orwellian Surveillance State so popular in British and European cities.

And I’m sure you all know how unreliable testimony can be to establish truth and how audio and video can be distorted or Photoshopped or edited to mean anything.

Worse, the cases of The Tawana Brawley Hoax in New York, Crystal Mangum with the Duke Lacrosse Team Hoax, and the Jussie Smollette Hoax in Chicago show that “hate crimes” can be faked and that faking “hate crimes” gets less punishment than actual crimes.  This gives zealous law enforcers, District Attorneys, and Judges a green light to help fake “hate crimes.”  In fact, a law enforcement officer could probably fake a “hate crime” against himself even easier than the general public by virtue of access to technology.

A law against “hate crimes” against law enforcers could also be used to silence victims and witnesses of actual police brutality.  This could also have a “chilling effect” on other people even talking about police brutality as a subject of conversation or study.

The law and the justice system needs to keep itself focused on justly arresting, indicting, trying, and convicting aggressors against persons and property, no matter who or what the aggressor or the victims are.  When the law criminalizes motives and thoughts, it becomes a monstrosity of tyranny and injustice.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling, punctuation, and choice of word
• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by TheEncogitationer.

[Unseen]

Here is where all this sensitivity leads: Roald Dahl wrote what is by now a classic children’s book about Witches. In the book apparently one of the major characters has a limp due to one leg being shorter and the lead character, played by Anne Hathaway has three fingers on each hand, which apparently is upsetting to some afflicted with this condition.

So, from now on witches can’t be depicted as having warts on their face or as having a finger shortage.

Anne Hathaway herself has rather large bazooms and I’m sure she must make a lot of much less well-endowed women feeling totally inadequate.

Gather up all the copies of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, folks, we’ll be burning them on the square at 11 p.m. tonight. Bring your marshmallows.

STOP THE INSANITY!

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by Unseen.

[—]

Unseen wrote:

Here is where all this sensitivity leads: Roald Dahl wrote what is by now a classic children’s book about Witches. In the book apparently one of the major characters has a limp due to one leg being shorter and the lead character, played by Anne Hathaway has three fingers on each hand, which apparently is upsetting to some afflicted with this condition.

No, that’s not where it leads. That’s barely a footnote in the overall conversations concerning representation and disabilities awareness. Perhaps if that were an isolated incident or there was generally better representation of people with disabilities and less ostracism in real life, it would be a non-event. That’s not the case.

[—]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Say you have a broken tail light and a police officer pulls you over. The officer gives you your citation, you blaspheme under your breath, the officer hears it and perceives that you are giving him or her a cross look. Couldn’t this officer not only charge you with a broken tail light, but a “hate crime” against police as well? If there is both a Federal and a State law against “hate crimes” against police, could the officer charge you with two “hate crimes?” And if the officer is also a member of a “protected class” under regular Federal and State “hate crime” laws, could the officer charge you with a total of four “hate crimes?_ And if an FBI Agent of a “protected class” is on a ride-along with the officer and perceives a slight, could you be facing eight charges of “hate crimes” on top of the broken tail light?

In most jurisdictions, a hate crime is not a specific crime, but rather an additional consideration in relation to another offence. For instance, if someone shouts ‘Go back to Mexico’ at someone they perceive to be a Mexican immigrant, they haven’t committed a hate crime. If, however, they chase them out of a mall with a shotgun while shouting ‘Go back to Mexico’, they have very likely committed a crime (chasing them out of the mall with a shotgun) that may end up also being determined to be a racially motivated hate crime. But unless that action of chasing the person out with a shotgun is found to be criminal, there is no hate crime to convict.

And hate crime isn’t something you can just tag on to any offence. Typically it has to be an unlawful action that threatens, intimidates, harasses, injures or harms a person motivated by bias against a protected class/ characteristic. So a broken tail light does not qualify.

[Author]

Posts