Free speech gone?

[MyndFyre]

All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial?  Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him.  That could bring up some mega trauma.

That sucks.  Then you have a choice: you can either get on with your life and deal with it or you can wallow in self-pity.  You have a choice to do one or the other.  The right choice?  Suck it up, bitch.

[CrAz3D]

All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial?  Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him.  That could bring up some mega trauma.

That sucks.  Then you have a choice: you can either get on with your life and deal with it or you can wallow in self-pity.  You have a choice to do one or the other.  The right choice?  Suck it up, bitch.

The right choice may not always be the prevailing choice though.
What if a comment that seems harmless but offensive actually DOES cause the person extreme mental anguish then said person commits a crime, then what?  Its a perfectly possible scenario & could result in the harm of a 3rd person.
Should the 1st person be punished for the harm caused to the 3rd person because they instigated person #2 whom lost self control & became mad or should the problem have been "nipped in the bud" with person #1 originally?

[MyndFyre]

All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial?  Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him.  That could bring up some mega trauma.

That sucks.  Then you have a choice: you can either get on with your life and deal with it or you can wallow in self-pity.  You have a choice to do one or the other.  The right choice?  Suck it up, bitch.

The right choice may not always be the prevailing choice though.
What if a comment that seems harmless but offensive actually DOES cause the person extreme mental anguish then said person commits a crime, then what?  Its a perfectly possible scenario & could result in the harm of a 3rd person.
Should the 1st person be punished for the harm caused to the 3rd person because they instigated person #2 whom lost self control & became mad or should the problem have been "nipped in the bud" with person #1 originally?

Are you seriously advocating that we repeal free speech on the pretext that it could hurt someone?

If someone kills someone else, it's 99% of the time not the weapon's fault (I'll leave 1% in there for accidental gun deaths or vehicle accidents). 

Should we hold vehicle makers responsible because they make cars that can go 120 miles per hour?

Should we hold alcohol makers responsible because some people drive drunk?

No.  We hold the person acting in these ways responsible.

[CrAz3D]

All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial?  Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him.  That could bring up some mega trauma.

That sucks.  Then you have a choice: you can either get on with your life and deal with it or you can wallow in self-pity.  You have a choice to do one or the other.  The right choice?  Suck it up, bitch.

The right choice may not always be the prevailing choice though.
What if a comment that seems harmless but offensive actually DOES cause the person extreme mental anguish then said person commits a crime, then what?  Its a perfectly possible scenario & could result in the harm of a 3rd person.
Should the 1st person be punished for the harm caused to the 3rd person because they instigated person #2 whom lost self control & became mad or should the problem have been "nipped in the bud" with person #1 originally?

Are you seriously advocating that we repeal free speech on the pretext that it could hurt someone?

If someone kills someone else, it's 99% of the time not the weapon's fault (I'll leave 1% in there for accidental gun deaths or vehicle accidents). 

Should we hold vehicle makers responsible because they make cars that can go 120 miles per hour?

Should we hold alcohol makers responsible because some people drive drunk?

No.  We hold the person acting in these ways responsible.

No, but we holder automakers responsible when something fails & bartenders responsible when they over serve people.
they contribute/enable the harm of whom ever.

[Grok]

I'm beginning to think Crazed is a troll.

[iago]

In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech". 

yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.

But what harms?  Where does "mental anguish" come into play?

That's not what I said, so I'm going to explain it again. 

"Free speech" does NOT mean "you can say anything you want."  "Free speech" is the freedom to express your ideas and principles without fear of persecution (by the state).  So that does NOT mean you can yell "FIRE!", and it does NOT mean you can tell your friend to kill somebody.  Those aren't ideas or principles. 

If you want to learn about the fundamentals of free speech, I believe John Stuart Mill is the author you're going to want to look into (I believe the essay/book was On Liberty).  He started the idea, and he accounted for pretty much every contigency.  His argument is quite good. 

(incidentally, Mill also write about the oppression of women back in the 17th century.  So he was pretty far ahead of his time.  He was very bright.)

[MyndFyre]

In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech". 

yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.

But what harms?  Where does "mental anguish" come into play?

That's not what I said, so I'm going to explain it again. 

"Free speech" does NOT mean "you can say anything you want."  "Free speech" is the freedom to express your ideas and principles without fear of persecution (by the state).  So that does NOT mean you can yell "FIRE!", and it does NOT mean you can tell your friend to kill somebody.  Those aren't ideas or principles. 

If you want to learn about the fundamentals of free speech, I believe John Stuart Mill is the author you're going to want to look into (I believe the essay/book was On Liberty).  He started the idea, and he accounted for pretty much every contigency.  His argument is quite good. 

(incidentally, Mill also write about the oppression of women back in the 17th century.  So he was pretty far ahead of his time.  He was very bright.)

You may even look at John Locke (The Treatises of Civil Government).  But yes, iago hit the nail on the head about what free speech is.

[CrAz3D]

In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech". 

yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.

But what harms?  Where does "mental anguish" come into play?

That's not what I said, so I'm going to explain it again. 

"Free speech" does NOT mean "you can say anything you want."  "Free speech" is the freedom to express your ideas and principles without fear of persecution (by the state).  So that does NOT mean you can yell "FIRE!", and it does NOT mean you can tell your friend to kill somebody.  Those aren't ideas or principles. 

If you want to learn about the fundamentals of free speech, I believe John Stuart Mill is the author you're going to want to look into (I believe the essay/book was On Liberty).  He started the idea, and he accounted for pretty much every contigency.  His argument is quite good. 

(incidentally, Mill also write about the oppression of women back in the 17th century.  So he was pretty far ahead of his time.  He was very bright.)

No, I totally understand what you meant, there are & must be restrictions on speech otherwise chaos would erupt.
I was just asking how do we know where to draw the line at what causes harm?

[MyndFyre]

No, I totally understand what you meant, there are & must be restrictions on speech otherwise chaos would erupt.
I was just asking how do we know where to draw the line at what causes harm?

Here's the problem with ever saying that mental anguish is ever someone else's responsibility:

You can't reliably measure mental anguish.

There are lots of things that you *can* measure, like stress, through many means, including muscle tension, elecrtolytes in muscles, and hormonal balance.  These are physiological, quantitative, objective measurements.

However, "anguish" is subjective.  Sticking your hand in a cooler with icewater in it to get the last beer might be "anguish," but later it might have been worth it (if you got the beer).  When you reflect on it later, it might not have been "anguish" at all, although I'm sure the pain was extreme.

[CrAz3D]

No, I totally understand what you meant, there are & must be restrictions on speech otherwise chaos would erupt.
I was just asking how do we know where to draw the line at what causes harm?

Here's the problem with ever saying that mental anguish is ever someone else's responsibility:

You can't reliably measure mental anguish.

There are lots of things that you *can* measure, like stress, through many means, including muscle tension, elecrtolytes in muscles, and hormonal balance.  These are physiological, quantitative, objective measurements.

However, "anguish" is subjective.  Sticking your hand in a cooler with icewater in it to get the last beer might be "anguish," but later it might have been worth it (if you got the beer).  When you reflect on it later, it might not have been "anguish" at all, although I'm sure the pain was extreme.

I'm not saying the mental anguish should be measured, just what happens with what results from the anguish?

It's like pulling the pin on a grenade, the pin does nothing, but it triggers the beginning of whatever explosion.
You call someone's mom a whore.  If that someone is unstable they might go off & 'explode' too.

[iago]

No, I totally understand what you meant, there are & must be restrictions on speech otherwise chaos would erupt.
I was just asking how do we know where to draw the line at what causes harm?

No, that's not what I'm saying! 

Those aren't restrictions on free speech.  Free speech doesn't even cover what you're talking about, now or ever.  Free speech is the free exchange of ideas and principles.  Nothing else.  Not being allowed to say "fuck you" on TV isn't a free speech issue.  Saying "Bush sucks" on TV is.

I don't think there's a line to be drawn here.  And I've seen no evidence that there needs to be one.  The core issue is that most people misunderstand what "free speech" is. 

[MyndFyre]

I'm not saying the mental anguish should be measured, just what happens with what results from the anguish?

It's like pulling the pin on a grenade, the pin does nothing, but it triggers the beginning of whatever explosion.
You call someone's mom a whore.  If that someone is unstable they might go off & 'explode' too.

How can you hold someone responsible for something we can't measure?

You rob a bank?  The bank can measure how much money you stole!

You cause someone "mental anguish," how are we supposed to determine to what extent you are responsible for that person's actions?  The simple fact is, we can't, because we can't measure "mental anguish."

Your argument has been that we need to be able to hold people responsible for what others do when they are suffering from "mental anguish" caused by the first people.

[CrAz3D]

You cause someone "mental anguish," how are we supposed to determine to what extent you are responsible for that person's actions?  The simple fact is, we can't, because we can't measure "mental anguish."

Your argument has been that we need to be able to hold people responsible for what others do when they are suffering from "mental anguish" caused by the first people.

no,that's what I'm asking, not what I'm saying.

Like a physical "chain reaction" example of what I'm think would be something like...
I push you, you fall into a dude that was standing on a cliff & he dies.
You weren't into control of yourself & maybe you couldn't help but make the other guy fall.

Same SORT OF idea, just instigated differently.
Some mental patients don't have control over themselves.  If you "mentally"(?) push them & they push someone off a cliff physically would it be your ault because you started the chain?

[MyndFyre]

You cause someone "mental anguish," how are we supposed to determine to what extent you are responsible for that person's actions?  The simple fact is, we can't, because we can't measure "mental anguish."

Your argument has been that we need to be able to hold people responsible for what others do when they are suffering from "mental anguish" caused by the first people.

no,that's what I'm asking, not what I'm saying.

Like a physical "chain reaction" example of what I'm think would be something like...
I push you, you fall into a dude that was standing on a cliff & he dies.
You weren't into control of yourself & maybe you couldn't help but make the other guy fall.

Same SORT OF idea, just instigated differently.
Some mental patients don't have control over themselves.  If you "mentally"(?) push them & they push someone off a cliff physically would it be your ault because you started the chain?

Person A: Verbal remark denegrating Person B.
Person B: Kills Person C
Is Person A responsible for Person C's death in any way?

You CANNOT ADEQUATELY ESTABLISH that Person A's remarks created any kind of mental trauma or "anguish" that caused Person B to go over the edge and kill a third party.  Why?

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MEASURE "MENTAL ANGUISH"!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't you take the time to read the goddamn posts before you troll another response?

[CrAz3D]

You can relate two events though.

Example:
You call me a troll, I flip my lid.

There was no other factor in my losing control, its not a measure of how distraught you made me, its whether or not you set me off.