Creative_soja t1_j34bbh3 wrote
The title is uninformative and misleading. Here are some highlights from the study:
>Over 87% of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, consistently express broad levels of support for free speech and free expression. But, there are willing to selectively withdraw First Amendment protections at times for some category of people. Then why do then make such strong endorsements regarding First Amendment protections? One reason to be skeptical about these declarations of support for free speech is that these endorsements lack tradeoffs and are socially desirable.
So, researchers hypothesized that it costs people nothing to support free speech, so they keep expressing their support. But could this change otherwise? The study essentially explored if introducing 'costs' affects support for free speech. The cost was the introduction of "the use of hurtful language".
For the control group, they asked: "I would never support restricting my or someone else’s freedom of speech"
For treatment ( 'cost') groups, they asked: "I would never support restricting my or someone else’s freedom of speech even if it means that Democrats/Republicans/other people will be able to say hurtful things about me/others"
The results show that
>Americans are willing to limit First Amendment protections for everyone (themselves included) when they deem the speech to be hurtful. However, they appear less ready to limit First Amendment protections for strictly partisan or ideological purposes. Respondents were relatively more opposed to censorship on college campuses when they heard different ideological viewpoints.
I don't find the results too significant. It was intuitive already that people might be reluctant to support free speech that was hurtful to in-groups and out-groups. Based on the introduction of the study, I was hoping they would explore why people changed their support for free speech. Was it just to avoid hurting others?
Edits: improved for clarity and grammar.
thereisonlyoneme t1_j37qxx7 wrote
Did they define "hurtful?" To me it means anything negative, but that is just my experience. I assume there is either an academic definition or it was defined for the study.
Creative_soja t1_j380jjt wrote
No. Unless I missed it, it seems they just used "hurtful" in a sentence of a survey question.
Evening_Team t1_j37mvh5 wrote
Insist on giving respect in public discourse rather than avoiding "hurtful" speech. Why? Because I cannot possibly anticipate every kind of way that another person might feel "hurt" by my words, even when my intent is to be very careful. Why? Because probably I do not know so much about the full lives of most individuals that I might speak to, whether in person (that is, directly) or remotely (that is, indirectly).
[deleted] t1_j37p8xq wrote
[removed]
EasternShade t1_j37xb63 wrote
I don't think it's referring to hurt feelings, but to speech that causes or leads to harm. i.e. threatening someone is hurtful, whether it's done respectfully or not. And, whistle blowing on toxic chemical dumping is helping people, whether it's done respectfully or not.
There's still going to be some point where people argue whether or not particular speech is hurtful, but I don't think it's as sensitive as you're suggesting.
MountainScorpion t1_j38wvng wrote
Well, we have to be careful of those arguments, because people frequently try to equate speech to violence or actual harm, and that's a dark road.
Evening_Team t1_j3adddi wrote
In some districts the police can shoot you if they "feel" afraid.
EasternShade t1_j3962at wrote
That violence and speech aren't equivalent doesn't determine whether they can cause harm. And, some speech does cause direct harm.
I'm not arguing to say that speech, violence, and harm are equivalent, but it'd be incorrect to assert that speech doesn't cause harm.
MountainScorpion t1_j397ruk wrote
If I speak the words, "May Zeus strike you down", and you are hit with a thunderbolt - did I commit violence? Did I commit harm? Did I commit a crime?
EasternShade t1_j39cxhq wrote
Did you commit violence? No.
Did you commit harm? Probably not. The subject and context matters here.
Did you commit a crime? Assuming that's the whole of it, no.
More to consider,
Are you clergy of Zeus? Are you speaking to devotees of Zeus? Is part of the faith that this person, or people like them, pose an existential threat? What's the audience for your message?
In the Milgram Experiment, the whole incentive was nothing but words. And to the best of their knowledge, at least 28% of people were prepared to inflict fatal voltages, as high as 91%, 61% on average in the US. On nothing but words.
Knowing this, if someone were holding the clipboard when the 'learner' is actually being electrocuted by the 'teacher', does their contribution only being words absolve them? Would they commit violence? Would they cause harm? Would it be a crime?
MountainScorpion t1_j39f7f4 wrote
>Are you clergy of Zeus? Are you speaking to devotees of Zeus? Is part of the faith that this person, or people like them, pose an existential threat? What's the audience for your message?
Do we assume Zeus does or doesn't exist? IMHO, law should assume that he does not. Which means, absent proof, the speech did nothing. Except perhaps offend someone.
If he does:
Can we prove the intent of Zeus?
Can Zeus be depositioned or investigated?
Would Zeus submit to the judgment of a mortal government?
​
>Knowing this, if someone were holding the clipboard when the 'learner' is actually being electrocuted by the 'teacher', does their contribution only being words absolve them? Would they commit violence? Would they cause harm? Would it be a crime?
This is a loaded question from the perspective of free thought. We cannot prove intent as we are not psychic. Therefore, we can only and should only punish action.
Policing speech is the same as policing thought, no matter how disgusting or dangerous that speech is - history and philosophy have proven time and again that doing so is not a good idea.
The milgram experiment does highlight a weakness, and that is why it is up to culture to fight it, not law.
This was all covered pretty heavily by John Stuart Mill. I don't agree with him on everything, but it's pretty well considered.
EasternShade t1_j39j8dr wrote
>Do we assume Zeus does or doesn't exist? IMHO, law should assume that he does not. Which means, absent proof, the speech did nothing. Except perhaps offend someone.
Whether or not a deity will exist, their followers do. Speaking to them is what I'm referring to.
>Therefore, we can only and should only punish action.
Yet, Manson is rightly in jail.
>Policing speech is the same as policing thought, no matter how disgusting or dangerous that speech is - history and philosophy have proven time and again that doing so is not a good idea.
And yet we recognize speech as a crime. Threatening someone, slander, libel, bribery, and conspiracy are all comes. Intellectual property laws are government backed censorship on the grounds that people can call 'dibs' on some speech.
> The milgram experiment does highlight a weakness, and that is why it is up to culture to fight it, not law.
And we have historical examples of cultures failing in this and lawfully committing genocide until others intervene. Law can provide an additional barrier to inhibit such cultural shifts.
I recognize that it is difficult to define where the line is crossed, but the notion that all speech should be limitless does not align with significant portions of philosophy or law.
Evening_Team t1_j3acfge wrote
There is little basis for any overt spoken threats of personal harm within a society, even when asserting self-defense. The right to self-defense should be presumed at all times and thus need not be asserted in speech as a type of overt threat. Overt threats, such as brandishing a firearm, are also subject to prosecution under a pertinent statute.
EasternShade t1_j3ad4oq wrote
Yep. Some speech is recognized as hurtful and subsequently regulated.
[deleted] t1_j37vwpu wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments