In your original comment, the distinction you made was between speech and action, nothing to do with whether they were a private citizen or member of the government. Now in this comment you are claiming that speech (“propaganda”, from your perspective) constitutes action. Are you trying to claim that hate speech & propaganda are “actions” if they come from an individual working for the state, but not from a private individual. As I said, your comments contradict each other in that sense.
I don’t think you understand the distinction. Free speech, as a principle, exists to protect and allow all people to privately hold and voice any opinion without persecution from the government. This principle doesn’t extend to people who are making speech on behalf of the state. That’s not their personal opinions, that’s the narratives the government wants to release to the public. It is their job to release this propaganda, and that’s an action to fulfill the obligations of the work they’ve been tasked with. Keep in mind, public officials still obviously have freedom of speech as they’re still people, however, this protection doesn’t extend to what they do within the capacity of their offices. That’s the big difference between someone like Kirk and someone like Streicher.
Also just to be clear, I’m not one of those free speech “absolutists”, I specifically said that I think the exceptions that are currently defined federally for the 1st amendment are the golden standard. Btw these exceptions are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, fraud, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, fighting words, and speech integral to illegal conduct. These pretty much cover everything that needs to be an exception. They’re clear enough to set objective standards, but also have some ambiguity to allow for nuance. I don’t think hate speech covers anything that’s not already covered, I also think that hate speech as a concept is inherently more subjective, arbitrary, and therefore more volatile than the already existing exceptions.
Your point about freedom of speech is well and fine, however that’s unrelated to the contradiction I am pointing out. Speech does not become action solely by virtue of the speech being made on behalf of a state.
I mean if you’re arguing technicalities then sure, I guess. My point is that there’s a clear distinction between personal opinions of individuals and public opinions made on behalf of another entity like the government. You could argue otherwise, but I consider the latter to be an action because it’s a job that you carry out rather than an expression of personal opinions. The speech itself isn’t what makes such cases considered as actions imo, the difference is in the context of the delivery.
Gotcha, that makes more sense. In any event, I don’t find your theory of distinction between speech and action very convincing. From a moral perspective, public and private speech can be viewed equivalently by those who believe in virtue ethics, by consequentialists, and by deontologists. I am struggling to see the argument for why state-associated speech is less excusable, when the impact it has on society is clearly detrimental, and when people acting on their own behalf have even more responsibility to bear than those “just taking orders” on behalf of the state or other organization.
Like with most things, there’s nuance and context is important. Consider these examples:
Example 1 - Some bigot posts on Facebook that he thinks all trans people are pedos. This is obviously hateful and offensive, but it isn’t targeting anyone specifically.
Should this be legally prosecuted? I don’t think so because this is ultimately a just a controversial opinion, and such opinions should be protected by free speech laws.
Example 2 - A homophobe posts on Reddit about how his neighbors are filthy parasites who don’t desrve to exist because they’re gay. Then they go on and explain in detail how they plan to kill them if they don’t move out soon.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, because this is a credible threat to safety. True threats are not protected by the 1st amendment.
Example 3 - A white supremacist starts a magazine where he publishes his racist views without targeting anyone specifically. He posts articles about things like how “whites are genetically superior to other racists” or “why segregation is a good thing”. This individual makes sure to avoid anything that could get him in legal trouble.
Should this be legally prosecuted? No, because while vile, this is still a private individual expressing his personal opinions. So similar to example 1, I think this should be protected by free speech laws because it’s just unpopular opinions.
Example 4 - A radical islamist starts an islamic news outlet where he counters the “enemies of islam” by doxxing them and calling on his viewers to take actions against the filthy nonbelievers. They provide clear instructions to their followers on how should go after islam’s critics, Jews, feminists, gays, etc irl. This includes trashing their businesses, trying to get them fired, harassing their families, writing graffiti on their houses, etc. The point is to make islam’s enemies fear islam’s power.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, these aren’t just opinions being expressed, this is a direct incitement to action. The intention here is to incite criminal behavior. This is true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, speech integral to criminal conduct, none of which are protected by the first amendment.
Example 5 - A congressional representative says during an interview with the press that she personally thinks that women are superior to men because men are just brainless apes with with rape tendencies.
Should this be legally prosecuted? No, while offensive and false, it is just that, an offensive opinion. There’s nobody being targeted, and she’s not calling for action. Therefore, this is an opinion that should be protected by free speech laws.
Example 6 - The White House press secretary during a routine meeting with the press gives a long speech about how the United States officially thinks that Indians are subhumans, and details how her fellow Americans can help keep their country clean by either taking out the Indians in their area themselves or by reporting to the Indian in their area to the newly established Indian cleanup agency where the government will either “take care of them”. When questioned, she said that she doesn’t personally believe that Indians are subhuman or deserve this treatment, but this was an order by the president.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, she spoke on behalf of the country and acted in an official capacity. Unless she had a gun pointed at her head, she voluntarily chose to incite people to commit crimes directly. Again, incitement to imminent lawless action and speech integral to criminal conduct are not protected by the 1st amendment and rightfully so.
I know this was a lot of examples, but I wanted to showcase a bunch of different scenarios to drive home the point that this isn’t something that’s entirely black and white. As you can see, context matters quite a bit. My opinion on the matter is this, if your speech intentionally tries to incite action or is done as a part of a job as is the case in examples 2, 4, and 6, then that’s you taking action and you should be prosecuted for it. However, if your speech is offensive, controversial, and unpopular, but is otherwise harmless as is the case with examples 1, 3, and 5 then it should be protected by free speech laws because that’s the very point of these laws.
Hate speech laws are trying to outlaw speech like the ones in example 1, 3, and 5, and I’m against it. I think it creates a slippery slope towards tyranny, and we shouldn’t mess with things like this. Sure, the views being protected now may be vile, but that could always change, and if it does, we should make sure that this right is protected so we can speak our minds defend what’s right when the time comes. Keep in mind, just because I’m against the legal prosecution of hate speech, that doesn’t mean that I think hate speech should be normalized. Social consequences are still a thing, and I’m in favor of people not putting up with bigots if they choose to do so.
In your original comment, the distinction you made was between speech and action, nothing to do with whether they were a private citizen or member of the government. Now in this comment you are claiming that speech (“propaganda”, from your perspective) constitutes action. Are you trying to claim that hate speech & propaganda are “actions” if they come from an individual working for the state, but not from a private individual. As I said, your comments contradict each other in that sense.
I don’t think you understand the distinction. Free speech, as a principle, exists to protect and allow all people to privately hold and voice any opinion without persecution from the government. This principle doesn’t extend to people who are making speech on behalf of the state. That’s not their personal opinions, that’s the narratives the government wants to release to the public. It is their job to release this propaganda, and that’s an action to fulfill the obligations of the work they’ve been tasked with. Keep in mind, public officials still obviously have freedom of speech as they’re still people, however, this protection doesn’t extend to what they do within the capacity of their offices. That’s the big difference between someone like Kirk and someone like Streicher.
Also just to be clear, I’m not one of those free speech “absolutists”, I specifically said that I think the exceptions that are currently defined federally for the 1st amendment are the golden standard. Btw these exceptions are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, fraud, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, fighting words, and speech integral to illegal conduct. These pretty much cover everything that needs to be an exception. They’re clear enough to set objective standards, but also have some ambiguity to allow for nuance. I don’t think hate speech covers anything that’s not already covered, I also think that hate speech as a concept is inherently more subjective, arbitrary, and therefore more volatile than the already existing exceptions.
Your point about freedom of speech is well and fine, however that’s unrelated to the contradiction I am pointing out. Speech does not become action solely by virtue of the speech being made on behalf of a state.
I mean if you’re arguing technicalities then sure, I guess. My point is that there’s a clear distinction between personal opinions of individuals and public opinions made on behalf of another entity like the government. You could argue otherwise, but I consider the latter to be an action because it’s a job that you carry out rather than an expression of personal opinions. The speech itself isn’t what makes such cases considered as actions imo, the difference is in the context of the delivery.
So basically your point is that “I was following orders” is a valid moral defense? Cool, I’m not interested in that line of argument.
The opposite, I’m saying actions are what should be held accountable.
Gotcha, that makes more sense. In any event, I don’t find your theory of distinction between speech and action very convincing. From a moral perspective, public and private speech can be viewed equivalently by those who believe in virtue ethics, by consequentialists, and by deontologists. I am struggling to see the argument for why state-associated speech is less excusable, when the impact it has on society is clearly detrimental, and when people acting on their own behalf have even more responsibility to bear than those “just taking orders” on behalf of the state or other organization.
Like with most things, there’s nuance and context is important. Consider these examples:
Example 1 - Some bigot posts on Facebook that he thinks all trans people are pedos. This is obviously hateful and offensive, but it isn’t targeting anyone specifically.
Should this be legally prosecuted? I don’t think so because this is ultimately a just a controversial opinion, and such opinions should be protected by free speech laws.
Example 2 - A homophobe posts on Reddit about how his neighbors are filthy parasites who don’t desrve to exist because they’re gay. Then they go on and explain in detail how they plan to kill them if they don’t move out soon.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, because this is a credible threat to safety. True threats are not protected by the 1st amendment.
Example 3 - A white supremacist starts a magazine where he publishes his racist views without targeting anyone specifically. He posts articles about things like how “whites are genetically superior to other racists” or “why segregation is a good thing”. This individual makes sure to avoid anything that could get him in legal trouble.
Should this be legally prosecuted? No, because while vile, this is still a private individual expressing his personal opinions. So similar to example 1, I think this should be protected by free speech laws because it’s just unpopular opinions.
Example 4 - A radical islamist starts an islamic news outlet where he counters the “enemies of islam” by doxxing them and calling on his viewers to take actions against the filthy nonbelievers. They provide clear instructions to their followers on how should go after islam’s critics, Jews, feminists, gays, etc irl. This includes trashing their businesses, trying to get them fired, harassing their families, writing graffiti on their houses, etc. The point is to make islam’s enemies fear islam’s power.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, these aren’t just opinions being expressed, this is a direct incitement to action. The intention here is to incite criminal behavior. This is true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, speech integral to criminal conduct, none of which are protected by the first amendment.
Example 5 - A congressional representative says during an interview with the press that she personally thinks that women are superior to men because men are just brainless apes with with rape tendencies.
Should this be legally prosecuted? No, while offensive and false, it is just that, an offensive opinion. There’s nobody being targeted, and she’s not calling for action. Therefore, this is an opinion that should be protected by free speech laws.
Example 6 - The White House press secretary during a routine meeting with the press gives a long speech about how the United States officially thinks that Indians are subhumans, and details how her fellow Americans can help keep their country clean by either taking out the Indians in their area themselves or by reporting to the Indian in their area to the newly established Indian cleanup agency where the government will either “take care of them”. When questioned, she said that she doesn’t personally believe that Indians are subhuman or deserve this treatment, but this was an order by the president.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, she spoke on behalf of the country and acted in an official capacity. Unless she had a gun pointed at her head, she voluntarily chose to incite people to commit crimes directly. Again, incitement to imminent lawless action and speech integral to criminal conduct are not protected by the 1st amendment and rightfully so.
I know this was a lot of examples, but I wanted to showcase a bunch of different scenarios to drive home the point that this isn’t something that’s entirely black and white. As you can see, context matters quite a bit. My opinion on the matter is this, if your speech intentionally tries to incite action or is done as a part of a job as is the case in examples 2, 4, and 6, then that’s you taking action and you should be prosecuted for it. However, if your speech is offensive, controversial, and unpopular, but is otherwise harmless as is the case with examples 1, 3, and 5 then it should be protected by free speech laws because that’s the very point of these laws.
Hate speech laws are trying to outlaw speech like the ones in example 1, 3, and 5, and I’m against it. I think it creates a slippery slope towards tyranny, and we shouldn’t mess with things like this. Sure, the views being protected now may be vile, but that could always change, and if it does, we should make sure that this right is protected so we can speak our minds defend what’s right when the time comes. Keep in mind, just because I’m against the legal prosecution of hate speech, that doesn’t mean that I think hate speech should be normalized. Social consequences are still a thing, and I’m in favor of people not putting up with bigots if they choose to do so.