Testing Konstantin Kisin on Free Speech: What Counts?

Clip taken from Within Reason episode 23 with Konstantin Kisin: • Debating Free Speech a...
Within Reason is a weekly podcast hosted by Alex O'Connor (CosmicSkeptic). Episodes are released every Sunday.
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
If you like Within Reason content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic

[@princemishkin1601]

I'm so delighted that Alex is going in this new direction of interviewing people and challenging them. There's not a single other person on KZbin who comes close to his ability to play devil's advocate.

[@StuckDuckF]

@RationalityRules

[@creepyunicornwithlazers3594]

I second this opinion.

[@teresaamanfu7408]

John Stewart.

[@yannickm1396]

What about Steven Crowder as Skyler Turden? And i also think John Stossel does a good job with devil's advocate.

[@aroemaliuged4776]

I think Alex takes on a different persona when he interviews theists I see inconsistencies in his opinions He easily gives up points to theists for no discernible reason Is alex an atheist?? Mind manipulation is a real problem Sadly one of them has been captured

[@JM-us3fr]

My only problem with KK is that he treats all his answers as if they are so obvious. But I think the point of Alex's questions are to point out how things are _not_ obvious. That's an important mindset when talking about these topics.

[@benner1320]

I very much agree. It’s important to have justifications for your arguments and how they work fundamentally, without appealing to your preconceptions and values.

[@______926]

You're the intellectuals he talks about. All theory. No practice. Things ARE obvious in practice.

[@daniellamcgee4251]

​ @______ It's simplistic thinking to believe that everyone's boundaries are the same, and a consensus will be easy. If you think it is easy, your view is probably solipsistic- you assume everyone thinks as you do, or should have the same perspective as your 'correct' one.

[@JM-us3fr]

@@______926 No, things are _simple_ in practice because acting on your intuitions and instincts is natural. But the _justifications_ for those actions are not obvious. How can you know when you are in the right when others disagree and you can't justify your actions?

[@mahman543]

@@JM-us3fr Then we're in a little bit of a pickle aren't we? All these question are only problem in rationalism. Psychological literature on decision making would suggest that this simply is not the case in human behavior. We do things almost always instinctively, and only rationalize it afterwards. That's fundamental. As to how to mitigate such consequence is another matter of its own. Is morality even possible then? several authors in mind have dealt with the problem (Moeller, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Haidt)

[@lucifer_0531]

"Insulting someone to the point that they get lifelong anxiety because of it is a great service to them cuz now they know they need to get therapy for it." - Konstantin Kisin, 2023

[@mykeljmoney]

I love discussions about free speech. There are many free speech “absolutists” that definitely are not. Twitter is a prime example

[@nicolinzini520]

In fairness to KK, he immediately replied 'no' when asked if he was a free speech absolutist.

[@gordonstrong5232]

In my view nobody's really a free speech absolutist unless they're prepared to have their bank details, burglar alarm code and browsing history uploaded to social media.

[@mikolmisol6258]

​@@nicolinzini520Good, because that position is just indefensible.

[@inajosmood]

​@@nicolinzini520 but then KK said practically: if it hurts me and people like mr it's bad, if it hurts others it should be ok. Oh and only I and people like me decide when speech is hurtful. Alex did a great job putting a light on that

[@nicolinzini520]

@@inajosmood I don't recall hearing KK say nor imply that Jos.

[@imgoej1202]

To me, KK really did not seem like he has been thinking too deeply about these topics. Nor have I, don't give me wrong. But it just contrasts so much with the absolute confidence he seems to have in his own opinions. Alex on the other hand is just so good at this.

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

Yeah honestly feels like it.

[@hbvanengelsdorp]

Kissin is just the new kid on the block in right wing grifting business. He's good at the grifting, because of some nasty character traits, but in terms of wisdom it's no use to anyone.

[@Morning404]

@@hbvanengelsdorp hit the nail on the head. Kissin is a grifter.

[@andresvillarreal9271]

There is a word for this: ideology. Konstantin is not having some ideas and putting them to the test, he is declaring that his pet idea is fundamental and absolutely true. He does not want to make humanity better, he wants to be an attack dog.

[@jshaers96]

I'd like to know where KK gets his funding from, because there's no way he is doing it all off his own bat. He's plugged right in to the right-wing culture war machine. It's been familiar in the US for a long time but we're starting to get over here now with outlets like GB News.

[@_Jitterbug]

Example of where this libel law could be executed: my ex-military brother and his partner at the time, broke up and upon moving houses, she accused my brother of domestic abuse. He was eventually found to have never committed said act(s), but nonetheless he has been barred from ever legally owning a firearm ever again - all because of a false accusation of domestic abuse laid upon him by his spiteful ex-partner. She faced no consequences for the false accusation. Situations are common here in New Zealand, as the judiciary system takes the side of the mother 90% of the time and demonises men based purely off the statistics that men are more likely to be physically violent than woman in a relationship. It's an utter disgrace and needs remediation immediately. It's no wonder we have the highest rate of male suicide in the world per capita.

[@ahmadjamalmughal47]

The customized message at the end of every such clip, is brilliant.

[@Ricehigh85]

It sort of saddens me that he doesn't have better justification for his arguments. Especially when his opinions seem so strong. I even believe that you could make good justifications for some of the positions he is holding, but he just is not doing it. Dismissing psychological damage as something that just does not happen or as something that the individual is himself responsible for, while claiming that monetary or physical harm matters much more is fairly shallow in itself. I think most people would agree that if physical harm or monetary harm caused you no unhappiness, then that harm would not be harm at all. It all boils down to human well being in the end, and that means that we cannot just ignore peoples mental state.

[@JM-us3fr]

Agreed. Many political or social commentators treat every position like it is so obvious.

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

I think ur critique is fair

[@mikolmisol6258]

Very good points. Psychological damage may well be subjective - but the results of psychological stress are very much *objective* and can manifest as increased risk for a wide range of diseases. He is just special pleading; his distinction between the types of harm is just based on his own intuition.

[@toby9999]

So, should it be illegal to say anything that might offend an individual? Of course not... but you're saying it should be?

[@rogerrinkavage]

​@@toby9999 American ideals for free speech draw things out pretty well for me. Not that the us currently follows that lol

[@MrMurph73]

loving this new direction Alex. Thank you

[@nigeltrc7299]

I think the point KK was trying to make but didn't quite express it, is that stuff like libel, doxing, defamation, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, are all examples of objective harm. Doesn't matter how thick skinned you are, all of those things WILL affect you negatively in some way. Whereas offence or hurt feelings is HIGHLY subjective and impossible to legislate, without basically everything you say potentially becoming a crime if the wrong person hears it.

[@jaihalai7674]

You can also pretty effectively measure the effects of racism and racist attitudes have on communities affected though. It certain contexts you may argue it’s a grey area and a slippery slope all you like. When public servants, police officers or politicians use racist language it is clear they aren’t fit to represent their community and they have lost the trust in parts of that community.

[@nigeltrc7299]

@@jaihalai7674 I have nothing against any of these people seeing consequences for what they say, provided none of those consequences involve the police showing up at their door. On the politician point in particular, that is why I am in favour of localised democracy.

[@albertcastro3500]

​@@jaihalai7674 u can measure the effects of racist actions but not necessarily racist ideas, if someone simply says something racist it's still up to the person hearing how that affects them compared to actually being discriminated against in which the victim have no control. U can't ,but also really shouldn't regulate ideas, only actions or at most direct calls to action.

[@jaihalai7674]

@@albertcastro3500 I mean we have data from numerous studies on the effects of racist language that show this to not be necessarily how an individual views it but how it can affect both individuals and communities at large. Meta analysis done by the National Institute of Health (meta analyses takes into account several studies and their statistical significance) shows that there is a link between being exposed to racism and adverse health outcomes. The r value, weighted mean effect for all bad mental health outcomes was significantly in the negative numbers -3.4 for PTSD and -1.6 for suicidal ideation. The conclusion was clear - it is clear that racism is significantly related to poorer health

[@impeacefulgamer]

@@jaihalai7674 I am sure if they study religious people especially i$lam. They will also come up with the same results! So that means we atheists can’t say anything about their religion? I only care about the harm that can be measured + it should be other than “you hurting my feelings” The answer is simple we are ignoring these because we get to enjoy “Freedom of expression” it’s like a very spicy food! You know it’s hurting your tongue but it tastes sooooo good! 1st Amendment - 1 UK hate speech - 0

[@whitler57]

Wait, I thought copyright infringement was considered theft of intellectual property as opposed to a free speech issue

[@whitler57]

@Excuse me but I’ll buy that. Does it take ownership into consideration?

[@whitler57]

@Excuse me but I’m just trying to educate myself and in turn understand how the copyright example in the video is a free speech issue

[@whitler57]

@Excuse me but Konstantin’s position may be muddy indeed as you say. Perhaps his definition of free speech can’t address marginal cases or is outright contradictory. I won’t defend him either way. Having said that, I think I see now how, as a by product of property rights, free speech can be limited. Would it be fair to say in these cases we value property rights more than free speech? Similarly, we should value not harming someone with words over free speech in some cases. Is that the idea?

[@raizan1526]

@@whitler57 The idea is that free speech can be limited. Consider this scenario: a person getting bullied until they committed suicide. This to me is effectively an act of murder. In this case it is obvious to me that free speech of the bully must be limited. And to say "have a better psyche" is very much akin to saying "learn martial arts/self-defense to protect yourself from a physical assault".

[@raizan1526]

@Excuse me but This is not a hyperbole. it follows from how i define murder. and the underlying logical structure is similar. I also didn't say that it is murder, but rather, akin (effectively) to murder (because murder is defined that the act is done physically or directly from person A to person B) you're free to disagree obviously, I only stated that to tackle a certain intuition, if you don't find it intuitive, then you can reject the argument. in either cases however, this doesn't change that it is a serious issue, and worth limiting free speech for (which you seem to agree with by stating that such laws already exist).

[@greentheam629]

I love that "Cathy newming" is now a phrase😂

[@hbvanengelsdorp]

It's Cathy Newmanning!

[@greentheam629]

​@@hbvanengelsdorpok

[@vatsmith8759]

@@hbvanengelsdorp Cathy Newpersonning surely?

[@hbvanengelsdorp]

@@vatsmith8759 Haha!

[@LittleMAC78]

@@hbvanengelsdorp Move over "Straw man argument", we have a new fallacious position in town...

[@shahg5524]

Konstantin is a beast. Ready with a response to backup what his point of view is. Amazing

[@Chaylubb]

Having a response to backup your point of view is literally the bare minimum you should expect from someone in his position...

[@deeznutz8320]

​@@ChaylubbFunny how he doesn't have one when it comes to Nick Fuentes Could it be because he is Jewish? 😂

[@thorstenmarquardt7274]

Common sense: 1. Free speech means freedom of opinion and non-slanderous or copyrighted information 2. Incitement to violence is neither an opinion nor non-slanderous information

[@sjn9195]

it very much looks like you gave your interlocutor enough rope and he never even knew it

[@jasonhendricks4562]

We can't live in a world where we outlaw statements that cause people distress, first and foremost, because we don't know how. Who determines which statements are "hateful". And then, how do we measure distress? Or how do we parcel out the people who claim to he offended over those who are actually offended? And then, why should any given person be so entitled?

[@PeterM8987]

Exactly.

[@drunkengull5759]

When speech of a party (one) about second party (two), directly and immediately causes a third part to act in a manner that harms the second party. That is the line; incitement, slander, liable, copywrite. Party one can say whatever horrible, awful, not nice things directly to party two.

[@totallytubular618]

If anyone's curious, here's a brief break down on defamation law and free speech in the United States. Btw I have a law degree: Defamation is: (1) a false statement that is provably false (2) made to a third party (3) of and concerning the plaintiff (4) with the requisite standard of fault (5) causing economic damages to the plaintiff "Requisite standard of fault" refers to the fact that there are First Amendment (free speech) restrictions on defamation laws. If the statement was made about a private person, the false statement only needs to be said negligently. If the statement was about a public official or public figure, the standard is called "actual malice." This is a misnomer - it means the statement was said with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This heightened standard is to prevent public figures and officials from suppressing the speech of others - people need to be able to speak freely about public events without worrying about being sued. Written defamation is called libel, and oral defamation is called slander. The fifth element, damages, are presumed (called defamation "per se") if the statement was the accusation of a crime, sexual promiscuity, business misconduct, or sexual disease. There are various defenses to defamation. The first is merely that the statement was the truth (the old adage is that "truth is an absolute defense to defamation"). Others are known as "privileges," and there are many. One is known as "newsworthiness" or "fair comment on a matter of public concern," which gives news outlets additional leeway. Others include petition clause privilege, which allows people to make false statements in a petition to the government, and the litigation privilege, which allows false statements in the course of a lawsuit - both without risk of being sued for defamation. Another "defense" is more recent, because public figures got into the bad habit of filing frivolous lawsuits (which amounts to financial harassment because defending a lawsuit is expensive even if you win) to stifle free speech - these are known as "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP). Many states have passed laws allowing a defendant to file an "anti-SLAPP motion" to get the case dismissed and force the plaintiff to pay attorney's fees when the case is obviously frivolous. Needless to say, winning a defamation suit in the US is a heavy burden.

[@totallytubular618]

There are also some First Amendment free speech restrictions on copyright law. This is why "fair use" is a defense to copyright. Also note that copyright only protects the exact manner of expression of the work, not the facts and ideas contained within it. The facts and ideas are instantly public domain, while the exact method the copyright holder disseminated the ideas is not. This is for the same reason - to protect freedom of expression.

[@nattyfatty413]

Law is a criminal enterprise. Any statist argument is missing the point. The law _is_ the problem "I have a law degree". Fabulous. To quote Sheriff Wydell in The Devil's Rejects: "I'm sure your knowledge of bullshit is limitless"

[@mouisehay930]

Finally a value-added comment!

[@totallytubular618]

@@mouisehay930 wish others had seen it haha

[@amphernee]

Don’t worry everyone, Konstantin is gonna decide how, when, and to what degree each individual experiences discomfort and anxiety 😊

[@biggtk]

I just want to know this guy's opinion on the difference in the levels of harm between hanging witches in 17th century Salem vs accusing someone of being a witch in 17th century Salem?

[@daniellamcgee4251]

But it's all fine, because everyone can just go to a mental health professional and just get 'fixed' so he can say whatever he likes. Then we can thank him for his disrespect, lack of awareness, lack of compassion, wilful ignorance about mental health, and cruelty that highlighted OUR problem (not his!). 🙄

[@alexandermcdonald9029]

@@daniellamcgee4251 The possibility of people being offended by your speech is a prerequisite to your speech. Therefore, it is retarded to say that Someone shouldn’t speak because it offends u. That’s what all speech does and so it does not matter.

[@mr.joesterr5359]

Did he say that?

[@biggtk]

@@mr.joesterr5359 Did he say how he distinguished between the different levels of harm he assigned to speech invoking identity discrimination vs speech invoking libel?

[@adamzain6770]

Is Alex being deliberately dishonest here, or does he really not know that the copyright issue is not a free speech issue? It is about ownership. Copyright law is in place to enable creators of original ideas or works that can be copied to benefit from their work. It is in place to allow society to function. It is based at least partly on the notion of the fairness of reward for labour, according to the value of that created. There is also a pragmatic reason behind copyright law - arguably a society where nobody can earn a living being creative would lack innovation. The arguments against copyright law could equally be applied to ownership of physical objects. The fact that copyright law is not about free speech is evident in the fact that it is perfectly legal to hold a Karaoke night with a group of friends, or to make a fan film based on someone else’s work. It is only a problem when you try to monetise it; in which case you will need a licence from the copyright holder. I notice also that Alex chose two things which are civil, not criminal infractions - neither copyright theft or libel can be criminally prosecuted, unlike the recent cases involving upsetting people - prosecutions for misgendering or the infamous nazi pug case for example. I don’t think playing devil’s advocate is sufficient excuse for mis-framing an argument to this extent - in my opinion he did end up doing a bit of a Cathy Newman.

[@ronan5946]

The argument of intellectual property is so easy to solve, it's more of a ethical problem than a moral one, see: If you are replicating the work from someone, that is the result of that person's intellect, time, dedication, ingenuity and effort AND making money out of it, OR depriving that person from their earnings, then you are violating that person's honest work and initiative. It's not about the words in the book, Alex, it's about the product of that person's intellect, the energy and time spent that has materialized in the form of a book, for example. I wonder why libertarians (I am one, by the way) find it so difficult to understand that. I honestly think there's some dishonesty behind that lack of understanding, like they want to believe everything muse be free, which is a huge contradiction by someone that in theory despise forced labor, socialism and the Big Estate.

[@danielyeh]

As a libertarian why should I care about the effort of others? Why does the government get to tell me what I can or can't do with a product? If I reverse engineer a product and able to reproduce it better/cheaper/more efficiently or even at cost, why shouldn't I be able to do it? All of us derive our success from the shoulders of other people's work. Be it from the education system, your parents, or society at large, no one succeeds solely by the virtue of their own labor. Both left/right libertarians argue in favor and disfavor of intellectual property. It is not a simple issue for that worldview to solve at all because they recognize the inherent value of it while it contradicts some of their core principles.

[@nattyfatty413]

Any statist argument is missing the point

[@colixo5731]

"Free Speech Absolutism" doesn't exist. It never has in all of human history and never will. So when someone describes themselves as a "Free Speech Absolutist", it's a sign that they've signed up to an ideology without rational consideration. (not at all uncommon nowadays). Once you challenge a person on the specifics, they usually revert to the Motte of redefining the meaning of words (I don't actually mean absolute when I say absolutist, etc.) Fair play to Konstantin for demonstrating that he's actually thought about it with his head before deciding with his feelings.

[@rogerrinkavage]

​@Excuse me but yeah, he answered a lot of specific scenarios without giving much of an overarching motive

[@nattyfatty413]

You seem to think that "human history" is only as old as states, but those have only existed for maybe a few thousand years out of 250k

[@rogerrinkavage]

@@nattyfatty413 I think his point that free speech absolutism has never been a popular still stands

[@colixo5731]

@Excuse me but I'm not actually aware of what KK's positions are tbh. I was more just referencing the recent drive towards absolutism as an ideology (and pointing out its silliness)

[@nattyfatty413]

@@rogerrinkavage He didn't say anything about popularity, he said it never existed

[@duskdrummer1667]

I never thought I'd live to see the day when liberals are against free speech. I'm with Bill Maher on this - my politics haven't changed, it's the left that's changed

[@TheE1legweak]

The reason for copyright (and patent) law is (originally) to protect the technological advancement of society. It does this by ensuring the creation of original materials, technologies, artworks (etc) is more profitable than simply copying existing ones. Copies do not incur the costs of creation (research, development, prototyping and so on) and can therefore be produced more cheaply. These copies disincentivise the creators and act as a handbrake on the progress of human endeavour. To ensure there is a reason for the creating of original works, from art to technology, copyright and patent laws were introduced to enable creators to profit from their advancements for a period of time. Thus, incentivising the creation of the new and enabling the furtherment of culture and technology. Copyright protection would then end, and the work would enter the public domain to be freely copied. The interesting thing here is how the more modern notion of IP and how the real reason for copyright has been forgotten by everyone it seems…

[@ereit4358]

The law is always a minimal bar. If we accept that humans should not strive to do the bare minimum but strive for virtue then “law” makes much more sense. the law generally prohibits the obvious unacceptable behaviors. However, the law cannot force virtue on the individual first because it becomes oppressive, second because virtue is obtained through freedom not coercion. Humans should not just strive to not commit obvious unacceptable behavior but should strive for the heights of virtue. Reaching virtue cannot be forced upon the individual by a law. This, free speech is free against unjust coercion, but also free for the sake of being virtuous. I may have the right to call somebody a slur, but it does not mean it is virtuous to do so. It also does not mean it’s neutral. By me calling someone a slur, it says more about myself than the person I’m slurring and that falls into the domain of social and cultural responses, not legal.

[@nigeltrc7299]

Is this a long winded way of saying 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'

[@nattyfatty413]

"The law" is a criminal enterprise. Any statist argument is missing the point. The state _is_ the problem

[@ereit4358]

@@nigeltrc7299 haha love it. yes, but also justifying that just because you shouldn’t do something doesn’t mean it necessarily should be illegal. Sometimes those are conflated

[@tobiashagstrom4168]

I feel like the older I get, the more tired I am of this "why shouldn't I be able to do all these things" attitude. My question is "why is it so damned valuable that people should be able to do things, like make unqualified statements about people without at least some ability to show that they had good reason to think it's true?" I'm starting to think that epistemology is what a gamer may call a "skill issue", if you make up dumb shit, it's your problem for not being able to justify your dumb shit. If you wanna talk shit about people, at least qualify honestly how much reason you have to think it may be true, and thus give a sense of a degree of confidence in the claim, rather than just claiming stuff with no evidence.

[@rogerrinkavage]

He's playing devil's advocate, I think he has the same view as you in reference to "why shouldn't I be able to do all these things" but wants to see how this guy reasons through the subject

[@TheBaconWizard]

I suspect I am on your side of the argument, but let me play devil's advocate for a second: Free Speech, is absolutely necessary for the functioning of a democracy. Without it, there is power-creep to the government in restricting speech that criticises it or its views or allies. Lack of free speech is itself hugely damaging on a huge scale with the potential to do harm across generations and entire countries if not more. It is therefore necessary that it is unassailable and as protected as possible with the line drawn only at speech that directly causes physical harm. Nobody needs freedom of speech more than minorities, including political minorities. If you make up dumb shit about someone, someone else can call you a moron for it, they can say you are a liar, etc etc. And they are allowed to do that because they, like you, have protected speech, no matter who you might be.

[@rogerrinkavage]

@@TheBaconWizard right on

[@pigflatus7434]

You’re acting like it’s entitlement, like we’re begging for something we don’t deserve. Are you saying citizens should have to justify everything they say to their government?

[@PauLtus_B]

@@TheBaconWizard The issue with full freedom of speech is that it can also spread lies, and considering politicians can lie and be voted on this becomes a pretty messy issue. Lying will always be faster and easier than debunking lies too so freedom of speech doesn't help to prevent that either. I am in favour of free speech but I really don't think it's as simple as Konstantin portrays it. There's a very messy grey area.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

I think this is a blurry but important subject. When people say things that significantly harm other people, the greater the harm the worse it is. Unfortunately, the truth is, this can apply to things which are true. When people knowingly lie and those lies harm other people, that is worse than if people tell the truth and it causes the same amount of harm to other people. When people sway something with the deliberate intent to harm others, that is worse than saying something without meaning to cause harm, whether what is said is true or false. In other words, someone who tells the truth with the deliberate intent to cause harm is worse than achieved The worst of these would be someone who says something harmful to someone else, they know what they are saying is a lie, and their intent is to harm someone else with what is said. counterbalanced

[@chapman2001]

My right to offend trumps your right to be offended

[@christopherblakely6298]

As a vegan who didn’t know about your arguments until after I found your channel and was a vegan, I was hesitant to continue to support your content. You pressing this guy for consistency reminded me why I followed you in the first place. Sorry about your health struggles (I watched your video in its entirety and I do understand your position. Stephen from rationality rules did a solid video on the social cost of veganism I disagreed with partially but understand the points), I hope you get it figured out and can be a solid voice for the animal cruelty-free and vegan life while still doing everything else you’re so great at. Your attempt at consistency or fairness in all things often gives me comfort, peace of mind, and motivation for my own personal life. Good luck to you and glad I didn’t knee jerk unfollow you despite my initial and ongoing disappointment from the vegan perspective.

[@deeznutz8320]

Veganisme the biggest scam in the food industry Paying the same for a chemically created steak made from soy beans

[@pz3782]

This demonstrates a lacking in education when people can't comprehend the difference between libel, copyright, or infringement and "mean" words.

[@iconoclastvii]

If it wasn't clear: Konstantin Kisin does not consider Anxiety "harm". Wait; He does, he just thinks you should be responsible for defending/preparing yourself for it. Somehow a punch to the nose carries no such responsibility or onus of personal preparation/protection against harm. Fuck I hope he watches this and realizes how ridiculous his position is so he'll fucking stop pissing on "Wokeness" as if it's so fucking awful to have to respect people's feelings.

[@Pivotcreator0]

He was pretty clear that he thought that subjective harm (something that wouldn't hurt everyone) is completely different from objective physical harm

[@nigeltrc7299]

What you you mean by 'have to'? You certainly shouldn't 'have to' respect the feelings of anyone by law.

[@AshMD]

Agreed, the problem with people like Kisin, Peterson and others (including some of their opposition) is that they’re entirely focused on defending their position, rather than openly exploring concepts that are important to them - which is what people like Alex do very well. It’s why you can never expect nuance from people like Kisin.

[@iconoclastvii]

@@Pivotcreator0 The subjectivity only applies to whether or not a person may or may not perceive harm from the words. Once a person experiences the harm, it is just as real as physical harm. The fact that you can't see the damage should not matter when assessing it. It then becomes a matter of trust. Do you believe that the person is suffering? Can you be sure? That is a matter of convenience/difficulty. If questions of morality were limited to situations where things are clear-cut and easy to determine, we'd be ignoring a lot.

[@BUSeixas11]

Your personal offense and anxiety at a person’s ideas is completely different from physical harm.

[@johncocksmith2693]

“Are you a free speech absolutist?” “No” … “Your position as a free speech absolutist seems arbitray”

[@ombelle5284]

Well maybe I know I have anxiety but I can't get any medication because seeing a psychiatrist is too expensive. Maybe that's because mental health is not covered by our great government's health insurance program. Maybe that's because people don't take mental health seriously. Ugh the end of this clip is so frustrating, and pull-yourself-by-your-boot-straps-y. Thank you Alex for taking on this subject. It's so frustrating hearing him wave away anxiety as if it was inherently not a potentially life-threatening ailment. It’s all right to tell a girl to lift herself by her own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless girl that she ought to lift herself by her own bootstraps.

[@Failzz8]

You're not as powerless as you think you are, and medication is not a solution for anxiety. All it does is cover the symptoms, which worsens the anxiety, makes it even harder to function without medication and also makes it ever harder to address the root causes. I speak from personal experience. I know it's hard, but you alone have the power to fix your anxiety. A psychiatrist can be helpful but isn't necessary, however stay away from medication if you ever hope to get rid of your anxiety. If you do see a psychiatrist in the future and they get pushy with medication, look for a different one, sadly for every good psychiatrist, there's a ton of bad ones out there.

[@exiledknight3961]

@@Failzz8 this

[@Jabba-le-feminist-hating-Hutt]

Konstantin Kisin is probably my favourite political speaker right now

[@kingvegetakinggoku2008]

Get Graham Oppy on the podcast

[@fantuswitt9063]

Yes!!!!!

[@chasingrainbows5288]

I'd love to see Oppy on the podcast too

[@jeff-gj6en]

Konstantin is so scared of offending his fragile anti-woke audience by ceding any ground that he refuses to properly engage with the question.

[@impeacefulgamer]

Which question he didn’t engage with? I think he did pretty good here!

[@JP-sm4cs]

At one point he basically had to admit you can't measure harm objectively and then just retreated into "it's not my fault if people need therapy"

[@Monkey-fv2km]

​@@JP-sm4cs both of those things can be simultaneously true.

[@steven7169]

Are you a free speech fundamentalist? "No." Well how about I question you like you said yes because I've got a good 10 to 15 minutes of debate built around that assumption.

[@williamhutton2126]

KK still seems lost in his inconsistent reasoning. He claims that lying about someone can damage a person's business. But so can the truth. And why the arbitrary line at damaging a person's reputation when mocking someone can also damage more than a career but cause psychological damage? His 'near' absolutism is absolutely arbitrary.

[@Failzz8]

It's really not, he just failed to articulate his point well, all the while Alex was digging for a "gotcha" instead of debating in good faith. I'm sure KK would agree that a business being damaged by the truth is not a problem but in fact a good thing, the problem isn't somebodies reputation being damaged, the problem is somebodies reputation being damaged by a LIE. Psychological damage is a bit different, a lie shouldn't damage ones psyche and if it does they should work out why. And if it's the truth that's damaging ones psyche, well then there's an even more pressing reason for that.

[@williamhutton2126]

@@Failzz8 Sorry, kiddo, it really is inconsistent and arbitrary. _"Alex was digging for a "gotcha" instead of debating in good faith."_- Simp, when you say you believe in something and someone points out a laundry list of negative effects about your beliefs and your only answer is "well I don't believe in THOSE things", YOU are the one trapped in a logically inconsistent trap. One you put yourself in. _" the problem isn't somebodies reputation being damaged, the problem is somebodies reputation being damaged by a LIE"_ - And, as I said, it's arbitrary in the notion of free speech absolutism. Whether something is a lie or the truth is irrelevant. It is free speech, right? What if a lie or series of lies HELPED someone else? Is it okay then? If words spoken or written whether fact or fable can enhance or damage a reputation, and you don't equally abhor both, then the line is unarguably arbitrary, child. This is the problem with those suffering perpetually beneath the yoke of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you are all as confident as you are consistently wrong. Your boy wasn't played. He played himself

[@natalievu4399]

"Hate" is so subjective & it's an emotion like love. Both shouldn't be regulated by the state. Also, anxiety isn't quantifiable, the loss of income after someone spreading lies, is.

[@Monkey908]

I don't get this whole discussion.. Why is it so important for some people to be able to be deliberately hateful? Why do you want the right to call a black person the n-word, use derogitory words for homosexual people or call someone sir who identifies as a women? Why do you want the right to be an asshole? This isn't about using the wrong pronouns by accident and getting cancled or criminally charged. Sure, some extremist might want that but that's not the point. It's about you wanting (intention) to have the right to hurt people on purpose based on specific identifiying criteria (sex, gender, race, beliefs, etc.) when you know it will hurt people. This is also not a slippery slope. When i go to the city and scream like an idiot for hours which is just a disturbance I could also get criminally charged (depending on the country). In that case nobody would argu "Oh, we shouldn't limit the volume of our speach that will lead to the government forbidding public demonstration/speaking or they will take the right away to speak in a normal volume or people just need to thoughen up". That's absurd..

[@mantabsekali920]

The trick question is what makes people do violence after an incitement to violence? Is it because of the speech or because of their own interests to do violence? Is it really acceptable to punish the orator if someone does violence because of the orato's speech? Is the listener or reader really cannot choose to not do violence right? Are they really cannot think about what they're going to do?

[@essexexile]

Wow wow wow. Honestly I literally found this channel 20 minutes ago from a short of you putting a great point over to Piers Morgan. I like KK 70% of the time but I’d say the point you made about anxiety really hit me. My fiancée struggles with anxiety and I struggle to understand it. It is most likely she has ADHD again something I struggle to understand but it’s not her fault that she feels that way. For her to get help has been an uphill challenge, she feels undeserving as they’re are people with worse issues. I feel that whatever your personal views are which I don’t know you’ve done a fantastic job of playing devils advocate. Well done!

[@harrywhiteley89]

The way I see the copyright thing is that it is like shooting at someone with a gun, you might miss them (the copyright equivalent would be not making any money off the copyrighted material) but you should probably still be charged with assault (or the copyright equivalent would be the removal or reimbursement). This is an odd comparison I know (and I understand the difference between Criminal Charges and Civil Tortes in the UK) but the idea is fairly similar

[@Doppe1ganger]

Poor Konstantin. He doesn't realise everything he says is arbitrary and open to debate. How is it not ok to call someone a pedophile because it has consequences, but if that makes you anxious than that is ok. His brain is just too small.

[@dianearmstrong1734]

The point KK was making was media reporting someone to be a paedophile without evidence

[@Doppe1ganger]

@Antares No, he's arguing ethics, or rather trying to and failing because really he's just an idealist with a tiny brain. He reminds me of Sam Harris, the same kind of stupid oxymoronic arguments. In any case, legality might very well be the worst argument of all time. In Iran it's illegal for a woman to not wear a headscarf on penalty of even death.

[@Doppe1ganger]

@Antares He's making ethical arguments. I don't give a fuck about "laws". He says that speech has concequences, but apparently only the negative consequences his low IQ can conceive off are relevant. He's an imbecile, regardless of whether it's practical or wanted to have hatespeech laws. I'm not impressed with anything he has to say, it's so dull that my brain turns off from boredom. Please define exactly what is and isn't defamation.

[@Doppe1ganger]

I mean, the laws in Iran are really fucking practical and simple. No grey area, you just wear the scarf or you're fucked. And that's fine with you, you don't care, it's not fine for me because it's unethical.

[@13shadowwolf]

So, his stance on Speech is "I want to be an asshole, but not have any consequences for being an asshole." Here's the reality, if you are a jerk to enough people, then you create a reputation of being a jerk and your actions are the cause of your own problems. If a someone wants to be an anti-"X" bigot, then they shouldn't be worried about having the reputation of being an anti-"X" bigot. If a comedian wants to try and make a carrier out of being a bigot towards some people, then they are a bigot-comedian and should accept the title that best describes them.

[@alaakela]

KK stated that he in NOT an absolutist. The other guy keeps circling that if there is a law to protect libel then KK has the right to sue. KK keeps telling him that the law being there doesn't mean we ignore the circumstances, demonstrating that he is not an absolutist. As for the anxiety, that's a boundary issue. No obe can make you feel anything. You choose your own reaction to reality.

[@The_Moderates_Apprentice]

When it comes to libel, you have the choice to do the right thing, which is to not lie in the first place. You may have a right to say anything you want, but if you knowingly publish a lie and damage someone's reputation, they should have the right to sue you for damages. That's how freedom works.

[@DrakusLuthos]

On IP Laws, I feel as if the nature of IP is somehow linked to the “spirit” of the work, of which replication could feel like a co-option of the creator’s identity. A replication of the words of a text is recapturing the spirit through word choice and phrases. A character or setting would fall under IP protection because it has a certain spirit about it, that is constituted by its appearance, behaviour, backstory, and other aspects. You place a piece of yourself into the works you create. Everything you create receives some of your spirit. For that to be replicated and stolen would feel rather violating.

[@mockupguy3577]

IP is a new invention. Copying and borrowing has been the norm throughout history.

[@nattyfatty413]

IP laws are all BS because every famous work is an obvious copy of an earlier, unheard of work

[@johnnyrockets10]

they seem to have missed the point on the copyright thing? Copyright is about economic harm - it's very different. It's simply about property rights, which is justified on economic and utilitarian grounds (everyone is better off).

[@celestialknight2339]

It’s really interesting to compare this to physical violence & harm. Because “words” are essentially just another form of potential weaponry as hands are-but one hurts physically while other emotionally/psychologically. So for example, imagine you accidentally knocked someone over on the street-that physically harmed them, but it’s not a crime because it wasn’t intentional. So intention matters. Now imagine a person deliberate punches someone in the face, but that person has a medical condition where they can’t feel pain. Did the person still commit a crime? Yes, I think so, because their intention was to hurt or cause damage. But this is where it gets tricky- If you verbally “punch someone” with hurtful words, but they’re unaffected & don’t care (like the person who can’t feel pain)-did you still commit slander or libel? This is more of a gray area, because unlike physical pain, words can DISSEMINATE and spread to other people (as KK said) so you’re more prone to long-term damage of multiple sorts (whether reputation, work, family, etc.) over a stretch of time; and so it’s more difficult to ascertain until the damage actually happens. Likewise, the example he gave of “insulting someone in a random pub” would be like a family member knocking you over the head at a family reunion or indoor dinner. It’s not as “publicly damaging” as when someone insults you in front of hundreds or thousands of people and lowers your quality of life. So all in all, it requires deliberate intention, social repercussions, and a measurable amount of harm-but that standard of measure is what is key; and not everyone will agree to it objectively. Hence the continued debate. Anyways those are just some of my random thoughts. Great video 👍🏼

[@24eu]

Yes I agree. Everyone has over complicated this issue because instinctively we think “no we should be able to ‘say’ what we want” and then make complicated positions. But we don’t all think we can ‘do’ whatever we want. I think we should make laws discouraging people from ‘saying’ harmful things just as we make laws discouraging people from ‘doing’ harmful things. And if any of these nuanced laws need refining and changing over time to be more lenient or less lenient then we can, just like any laws.

[@24eu]

Of course deciding on, and enforcing nuanced laws for both saying and doing things that cause harm is very hard practically. But the principle/philosophy behind it all doesn’t seem to need much thinking. We already have and do this, I think social media has just highlighted a grey area in which we need some new laws to treat it much closer to real life and that’s why it’s talked about a lot atm but always goes of on tangents.

[@NathanOrok]

@@24eu What social media allows for is anonymity, which seems to bring out the worst in everyone. Laws can only go so far. The analogy w/ real life is interesting, because the difference w/ real life is that being an asshole can attract immediate and significant personal consequences without applying any laws. The same isn't true on social media.

[@cnrspiller3549]

​@@24eu God! You maniacs depress me. Free speech is our most foundational and important freedom. Without it, the whole of the enlightenment comes to a crashing end. Your hurt feelings (and mine) are a tiny and necessary price to pay for this rare, precious, hard won freedom. Please get this into your ungrateful heads. And while you are at it, learn what libel laws are for. They are there, not to protect your feelings, but to protect your reputation from lies about you, told in public. The reason this is different from hurt feelings is that it involves other people and their opinions about you. If a lie about you is believed by enough people, there is nothing you can do about it. If you feel upset because the nasty man said some hurty words then there is plenty you can do about it (therapy, a long walk, a social media holiday, a therapy pet, grow a spine ... the list is endless) You live in the best time and the best place in all of history yet you cannot recognise the most fundamental freedom that underpins your entire utopic existence.

[@mantabsekali920]

Civil vs criminal law

[@korpen2858]

Capital is the holiest of all in the western world as proven by the copyright examples

[@valerev2608]

Whenever I watch Alex I'm reminded of Pseud's Corner in Private Eye.

[@adwaithratnakaran8017]

I agree with KK completely. Despite not being put in these exact words, what I believe he is getting at is that the loss or harm has to be measurable to be sued for it. Anxiety or depression sadly isn't. Monetary loss on the other hand, that's quite calculable.

[@bobon123]

Konstantin does not come out very well from this debate, as he really pushed all the wrong buttons and missed Alex's point until he was too deep into the conversation. Clearly it is _not_ a matter of _amount_ of damage, and keep insisting on "a bit of anxiety" was really self defeating. Those are all contingent arguments, you cannot try to sneak those behind Alex. The real _substantial_ moral difference between libel or copyright law and hate speech is that the first two have a clear definition that regards only the action and the intent of the speaker, while the second regards how the victim reacts to it. This is a substantial difference: you have to know that what you are doing is a crime before doing it for the state to punish you. This is achieved either by objective evaluation of the action ("If I punch someone, is a felony unless he gave me explicit consent", or "If I copy your text, is a crime unless you game me explicit consent") or, in those case where it cannot be clearly defined the action, my intent matters and typically is very difficult to prove the crime. In a free speech supportive legislation for example you cannot do libel unwillingly, as society have to prove you said something false _while knowing it to be false._ Hate speech however is very different. While few parts can be codified (specific words that are forbidden, irrespective of intent), those that cannot be codified cannot be regulated in relation to the _reaction_ of the receiver, and not my intent. This is because I can say something without any intent of hurting someone's feelings and still do it, and this cannot be a crime. Free speech supportive legislation about hate speech would restrict talk that is willingly hurtful, but not speech that is perceived as such. If I claim that trans women are men (something I _do not believe at all,_ it is just for the sake of the example), I have to be free to do so unless _it can be proven I am saying this with the intent of hurting someone,_ and not just to discuss semantic academically. Irrespectively on how much someone is hurt by my speech, unless it is meant to harm it is not a crime.

[@DanielWattsUK]

This is absolutely spot on. Well done. Question - at the point someone has advised you that what you're saying is now causing them hurt, what duty do you have to modify your speech even though your intent remains not to deliberately cause harm? Or, as long as your intentions remain non-harmful, can you continue to speak regardless of this awareness? Is the circumstance relevant? One person complaining of harm in an audience of 1000 vs a personal conversation with a single person who tells you you've hurt their feelings and would like you to stop speaking?

[@bobon123]

@@DanielWattsUK Thanks. You raised a very good point, I have to think better about it. As a gut feeling, I do not think that you _stating_ that something is hurting you should be enough to _make_ me stop speaking about a subject. It is of course my moral obligation to do so, and I would never say something if I believed that it is hurting someone, but I do not think that the government should use its power to stop me just because you stated it is hurting you. That is because the state cannot check if you are saying this because it is hurtful - and _how much_ it is hurting you - or because you are trying to stop my free speech. In the end it has to be left to my own interpretation unless what you are saying it is willingly hurtful - a higher bar. It is of course a case of conflicting rights, but if we were to say that someone _stating_ that something is hurting them would be enough to make the government stop people talk about it forcefully, we would be without free speech. I am an immigrant, Indian citizen in a West European country (high skilled and well paid - no drama). There are certain political ideas, disparaging my rights or the rights of my kids, that are undoubtedly hurtful - I had discussion with the parents of my kids' school friends that I still think about after years. Should I be allowed to stop them _speaking_ about those arguments just by saying that they are hurtful, even if they are not saying them to hurt me? I think that they have a moral obligation to stop if they _believe_ they are hurting me, but if they don't believe me the state should not be involved unless it can be proven that their _intent_ was to hurt me. This would allow to punish someone saying "Dirty XXX, go back to your country" - it is difficult to claim that they do not want to hurt me - but allow everyone to speak freely of any political argument, irrespectively of how bad and hurtful it is, unless it can be proven you are doing it with the intent of hurting - a very high legal bar, as required to protect such an important right as free speech.

[@thomasfischer9259]

The copyright argument was weak, that has nothing to do with free -speech. That has to do with stealing. (his work, his thoughts, his reputation). It's frees-speech because it has words? Linguistically speaking, that's uh ... very contentious.

[@gordonstrong5232]

I think a lot of free speech warriors erroneously conflate the right to free speech with the right to an audience for their speech.

[@nattyfatty413]

And authoritarians love to pretend "free speech" and "right to an audience" are separate to justify their oppression of free speech

[@gileshumphry]

And I think critics of free speech confuse hate speech and harassment. If someone shouts the N word at my wife in the street that's harassment and intimidation and should be treated as such. If someone is mad or bad enough to argue she deserves to be hated because she is black that's absolutely an idea I want out in the open where it can be beaten to a pulp, not driven underground to fester unexamined. The principle for me is that no idea should be completely suppressed even though we can regulate how and when it is expressed

[@riotgrrrl8807]

Where in the UK are you forbidden from saying things that someone might find "a little bit offensive" or that "cause someone a bit of anxiety"? I don't know where he gets this feeling of restriction from or who even advocates for such a thing. I'm guessing he's trying to minimize the real world effects of racism, sexism, transphobia etc. Just know that oppression up to fascism most often starts with speech. Every German (like me) who knows the history of our country should be aware of this.

[@manofculture584]

There are ridiculous hate speech laws all around..you say fascism starts with speech..i would argue that fascism starts with restrictions on speech

[@HarrynJessie]

CS's initial about what it means to believe in free speech - what speech fits within the rubrik - is really important to the whole discussion around the legitimacy of restrictions on public debate. I don't know that KK necessarily did a good job of defining the distinction that Brendan O'Neill makes between free speech and a criminal offence. The distinguishing feature, it seems to me, is the expression of opinions as opposed to actions. Incitement to violence is not an expression of a view. It's a call to action to do some specific violence against a specific person or group. To the degree that people can use contortions of language to make an incitement present as mere expression of opinion, I'm quite comfortable with that being the grey area over which the courts adjudicate. Freedom of speech is not about verbal assault, incitement to violence, perjury, revealing state secrets, breaking client legal privilege and so on. It's really about expressing one's view, on the one hand, and access to the widest possible range of ideas, on the other. Very interesting clip, nonetheless. Invites one to check out the rest of the interview.

[@andresvillarreal9271]

There was one thing missing in that clip: the concept of a reasonable person. You cannot say things that would harm any person without a justification, but you cannot avoid every single comment on every single person based on the possibility that it would damage a theoretically weak person who is incapable of enduring insanely small challenges. In this case, both are wrong because both are taking their ideologies to the extreme.

[@123G-r4d]

The real distinction with libel is that one party is making a claim to truth. I.e. they are saying it is a fact you are a bank robber, pedophile, whatever the accusation may be. Whereas free speech protects opinion. Use of the word allegedly bridges this nicely

[@njhoepner]

As a white man in America, I think it is very easy for those in my position to laugh off things that may feel much more harmful to someone else...being part of the "Normal" rather than the "Other" is a huge advantage and makes one able to absorb much more. Someone who has had to spend their entire life on the receiving end of both subtle and not-so-subtle slights, jokes ("can't you take a joke?" for decades on end), discrimination, etc is going to be much more sensitive and less able to laugh things off, even if they do so on the surface - not because they're weaker, or because they have some kind of problem that THEY need to fix, but because they've had to take so much more abuse for their whole lives already. This is an aspect of reality that I don't think people who like to throw around words like "snowflake" understand, and certainly (like me) have never experienced. Those of us in the dominant group are not really in a position to pass judgment.

[@bengreen171]

Of course he's not a free speech absolutist - he thinks he should be protected from harmful speech but vulnerable minorities...not so much. I was disappointed you didn't push him further on this topic - claiming that people should 'just get over it' and comparing the sort of harassment and abuse received by minorities as 'schoolyard insults' was a complete mischaracterisation of what his version of free speech looks like. Allowing him to reduce the effects of 'free speech' to 'causing anxiety' was a serious drop of the ball.

[@nicolinzini520]

It's almost like you can expertly read Konstantin's mind and see his motivations.

[@iconoclastvii]

@@nicolinzini520 Don't need to read his mind to see him do it in real time. He also dances back to libel/slander constantly because it's simple, and what Alex put forward isn't. Why do YOU suppose he did that? What Ben seems to be saying is that he'd like Alex to have probed so that we don't HAVE to try to read KK"s mind.

[@nicolinzini520]

@@iconoclastvii May I ask what you are referring to by 'him do it in real time'? What is 'it'? You are correct that Ben wished Alex could have probed more, but Ben also went a lot further by saying "[Konstantin] thinks he should be protected from harmful speech but vulnerable minorities...not so much."

[@iconoclastvii]

@@nicolinzini520 His opinion on what constituted harm that people should have to protect themselves from was entirely tied to his own personal views on what he found harmful. When Alex attempted to ask him about copyright, for instance, he danced away. When Alex attempted to paint all harm as signals in the brain expressing displeasure, he immediately insisted that he wasn't really into the bigger philosophical questions. Again highlighting what he felt is important and minimizing everything else.

[@nicolinzini520]

@@iconoclastvii It was a great point that Alex brought up regarding the brain registering harm/discomfort from either words or physical pain. The word thing to me is a bit of an alien concept - like KK I struggle to see how people can be so hurt by words, but seemingly some can. Sometimes words can be used to hurt you financially, sometimes incitements can be made to put you in potential danger, and sometimes words can be used to get you fired from a job - in each case it is the end result where the harm lies, not in the words themselves. In such cases that for me, is where the line of free speech should be drawn - when the external consequences lead to harm.

[@antonyjames9109]

I think libel laws and copyright laws restrict measurable harm. With today's technology we can't measure anxiety.

[@pizzaboy4463]

Copyright law isn't just to compensate an individual for loss of money, it's also to protect creativity, which the public as a while benefits from. If people couldn't make money from there creative work, the wouldn't do it, as they would starve otherwise.

[@nattyfatty413]

Money is a fiction designed to oppress and control, so the argument has false premises to begin with. Any statist argument is missing the point

[@JKEYSONVINYL]

What I think is also an interesting question which adds even more complexity, is how does it change when deep harmful speech is used to attack a group that goes beyond mild offense

[@Sphere723]

That is a good question. In law there's the idea of a class action lawsuit where a little bit of harm to a large number of people can be rectified. Is speech which does a little bit of harm to a large number of people the same sort of thing?

[@herbiewalkermusic]

This is clearly a moral issue about dishonesty. Everybody has to stop lying, even extending the truth.

[@davidbenton8775]

A counter example to the hate speech argument advanced. If Fred becomes severely anxious and depressed by attractive girls rejecting his requests for sexual intercourse, the harm he suffers is real and can have lifelong effects. Should he be able to sue the women who caused that harm? Yes, it's ridiculous. Yes, it's his problem not theirs. So, exactly the same in that respect. xxxx

[@joannware6228]

"Anything seems possible if you don't know what you're talking about." Vince The Sign Guy

[@mikahong]

Had I known this concept as a kid the brains of the grown ups I had growing up would've made sense from just that haha.

[@joannware6228]

@@mikahong You can now see how superior you were to them.

[@mikahong]

@@joannware6228 everyone is ignorant that's what I discovered

[@joannware6228]

@@mikahong Especially on this site.

[@mikahong]

@@joannware6228 anywhere on the internet, really. Amplifies what's already irl. Is that previous comment sarcastic or...?

[@TheBaconWizard]

So are we going to pretend that hate-speech cannot in some cases lead to making someone's life intolerable or threaten their life/livelihood? AND that of their families and friends.

[@DieFlabbergast]

Define hate speech. Then, even more crucially, define who gets to distinguish "hate speech" from ordinary expression of opinions. And if you believe that people should not hate other people, for whatever reasons, or should never have the right to express their hatred, you are simply living in a fantasy world. Also, be aware that the current "debate" about such issues has become completely binary ("either-or"), in most cases from the left. If one expresses misgivings or specific criticisms of, for example, trans activists or BLM activists, one is automatically consigned to the "extreme hatred/Nazism category. A balance, proportional, adult debate is simply NOT being had.

[@TheBaconWizard]

@@DieFlabbergast I agree that the problem is who gets to define terms and enforce them. Personally, I am not making the argument that people shouldn't be allowed to hate or to express hate. However, there are VERY clear examples of hate-speech leading to death, torture, financial hardship, trauma of children.... And specific kinds of hate speech that can lead to such consequences are something that any sane or decent human being would wish to see prevented if possible or practical. Furthermore, protection of speech is NOT the same thing as guarantee of a platform.

[@jbapples4611]

@@TheBaconWizard Would that kind of speech not fall under incitement to violence which is already illegal? And you might be right in a legal sense in regards to guaranteeing a platform. That doesn’t mean deplatforming or setting of fire alarms during talks is a positive thing to do. I’m also unsure that any of those tactics, or restricting speech, shutting down discourse, shouting people down have the desired effect. Restricting speech has also led to death, trauma, financial hardship, torture of children etc. … and in far far far greater numbers. So have many things which are not ilegal or even talked about (some are not even permissible to talk about less you lose your job)… and here in lies the problem. The pendulum has swung too far

[@cnrspiller3549]

I hate the concept of hate speech. But you only know that because I told you. You do not know of anything or anyone else that I hate - even if I say things about people that you find hateful. Hate speech is just speech that some whining snowflake hates. Libel is broadcast or published speech that is both untrue and that will damage someone else's reputation. Someone can do something about their hurt feelings (get therapy, don't listen to the hurty words in the first place or grow a spine) but because reputation damage involves the opinions of other people, there is nothing the victim can do except sue. Why is any of this so difficult to grasp?

[@burner918]

But therein lies the challenge. Because we can’t define hate speech or to be more precise, define it in an objective way that we all agree with - it remains subjective and easy to manipulate. You can’t on the one hand acknowledge that we can’t define hate speech accurately/objectively and also claim that it caused harm. What exactly caused the harm? Was it the hateful speech or the mean speech? Or was it just rude? Where are the “mean” and “rude” quantifiable markers on this speech spectrum precisely? Once you start attributing damages to a potential cause that we can’t even define, things go downhill pretty quickly. You claim that you were harmed because my speech was hateful. Ok, I claim that your mere presence or existence was hateful and damaging to me (or when you reached out to me and said the first words, those were hateful to me). And we can go round in circles about whose words hurt who more. This game ends in utter chaos.

[@williamcannon7262]

Interesting discussion

[@joannware6228]

I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, says the Lord, but rather in his conversion, that he may live. Ez 33:11

[@machtnichtsseimann]

Free Speech ought to be absolute, and Society ought to be virtuous. It is not.

[@bigol7169]

Physical and verbal assault can be differentiated in my view. I recognise that physical pain is a mental event, yes, but physical damage may not be. You can be unconscious while hit, for instance, or drunken with drugs or adrenaline; in fact, these lesser mental states that verge towards the unconscious would make an assault on that person *more* offensive, not less. Kicking a man while he’s down or unconscious? It seems worse. Yet it is not primarily a mental phenomenon he’s experiencing. He may wake the next day confused with stab wounds in his back… was assaulted even though he doesn’t remember it?

[@jasonfields2793]

Free speech means your are free to say the words but not Free of the consequences of doing so.

[@the1exnay]

As a proponent of free speech, it was incredibly frustrating to watch this. He is so bad at advocating for free speech that i'm certain he's worse for the cause as an ally than he would be as an enemy. He seems to think that any opponents to free speech must just be crybabies or malicious. But no, free speech has real harms. Big harms. When we advocate for what the government should do, we are directing what laws should be violently enforced (because all laws are ultimately backed up by violence or ignorable). We are deciding what harmful acts shouldn't be stopped. We are deciding what schools should teach to the next generation. These are big impactful decisions. Free speech is far from harmless. Some of those people that are offended, are offended because they know what's being advocated for will result in their loved ones dying. And yet, a free speech advocate must still say "it should be allowed to be said". If he doesn't have the guts to say that, then maybe he shouldn't be acting as a free speech advocate.

[@DPM917]

Libel/slander laws in the US are governed by state law. So, there are 50 sets of libel laws; however, they are all nearly identical and all are governed by the constraints of the First Amendment (free speech) of the US Constitution. Generally, libel is a misstatement of fact that injures one’s reputation. To be actionable, the statement must be one where the speaker is asserting a fact, rather than an opinion. The law uses a “reasonable person” standard, so an overly sensitive person has no greater claim than a thick-skinned one. For public figures who claim they were slandered, the claimant must also show that the speaker/writer made the false statement of fact with malicious intent (ie with actual knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard whether the statement is false). This latter rule makes it very difficult for politicians and celebrities to win a libel claim in court.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

[@ryanhau1073]

An interesting discussion. Like most people would agree to Limit Speech by Damages, tho Alex does have a great point that this line can easily apply to allot of things, like an agrument that's being made for Hate Speech Laws is that it causes harm in some way, even tho most of us would say that's silly, but even with our current Harm Standards there is still a very thin line between Defamation and Name Calling. Let's look at some of the recent controversies with JK Rowling, putting aside the whole issue about Gender. Rowling did on repeated occasions threaten to sue people for saying things about her on social media claiming she was defamed and canceled, however if we based it on Damages there's hardly even anything. Rowling wasn't fired from anything, still working with studios on movies, and still getting Royalties from her book sales and that Harry Potter Game (that is currently selling well). All that Rowling got as a result of that controversy are some Vocal Haters, something Every Celebrity would get regatdless of anything. So based on Damages, Rowling's situation is no where close to being anything like Johnny Depp (Who was fired from all major studios based on an accusation), at least not to the point that the Law needs to be involved. Like there are always people who hate you for all the wrong reasons, that's simply a fact of life, and we all should have the right to express our views. In the majority of cases the best response to this is the same as the best response to Name Calling, Accepting it Happened and Move On with our lives

[@007EnglishAcademy]

There are no freedoms without rules.

[@ErikJohnson-ejlaw]

This is irritating for me as an attorney because both of these guys are attempting to wax eloquent about defamation laws but they don’t really know what defamation is or how it’s defined. Legally, defamation is a (1) false (2) defamatory publication of (3) fact. Most defamation cases hinge upon whether the statement is one of FACT versus OPINION. And this is the critical difference. We allow people to express any opinion they want. But we’re not allowed to say outright false statements of fact. This goes all the way back to biblical law: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness. There are categories of statements that are recognized to be defamatory on their face - called defamation per se - accusing a person of a crime, having a STD, etc. As a society, we recognize these statements have a tangible impact on a person’s life and reputation. These statements, by their very nature, cause damage to a person’s reputation. This is WHOLLY different from “misgendering” someone. First off, calling the person by their biological sex is a factually TRUE statement. So it cannot be defamatory - regardless of whether the person is offended. Cosmic Skeptic made a comment that the difference between defamation and misgendering is one of “degree” (or scale), rather difference in “kind.” He is wrong. Defamation causes actual economic losses - lost business (think of being “cancelled” and blacklisted because of a lie), loss of clients, lost friends, falling into disrepute with one’s family and friends … all because of a fucking LIE. This is wholly different from stating an opinion which someone finds offensive, but which has no negative consequences on their life, livelihood, reputation, or business.

[@Uriel-Septim.]

I agree, there is no such thing as hate speech, people should be able to use free speech to say what ever they want, even ETC. question the shape of the Earth or if the holocaust actual was what it is portrait to be, with out being banned or ostracized.

[@joannware6228]

Daily Verse "Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." -Matthew 10:29-31

[@joannware6228]

Though we live and move within the confines of this world of space and time, we are not meant, finally, for this dimensional system; we are summoned to life on high with God in a transformed state of existence. The Transfiguration, therefore, awakens our sense of wonder and steels our courage to face the darkness here below." Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (08/06/23)"

[@peter5.056]

If I took out a full page ad in The Sun that read, "Cosmic Skeptic R-pes Babies!" That sort of speech should be disallowed, and put me in jeopardy of criminal charges.

[@MinimaAmoralia]

I watched the whole interview and at some point, while being challenged by Alex about offensive language, KK said something along these lines: "I don't care about the philosophical arguments, I care about the common sense". To me this illustrates a dangerous anti-intellectual current among contemporary public (paradoxically) intellectuals. Common sense can and is often misleading because it derives from our socialisation. There is nothing inherently 'true' about the common sense. Human societies are complex and that's why we use analytical language to conceptually disentangle the webs of our reality. Philosophy is not about abstract theorising as some complain. It is, among other things, about challenging the taken-for-grantedness.

[@mikolmisol6258]

Very good point. I absolutely abhor the phrase 'common sense'. 'Common' is to 'common sense' what 'car' is to 'carpet'. Everyone has their own common sense built from their own biases. And do not mistake logic for common sense; logic actually is common in that it is objective, but that is never what these people refer to. The dismissal of philosophy is also laughable. Our society is built on philosophy invented thousands of years ago. Democracy, science, bioethics - these are just a few concepts that we would be unable to conceptualise without philosophy.

[@Steventrafford]

I watched the whole conversation. I think it was brilliantly measured and fair. Great job Alex. I admittedly didn’t think much of Konstantine, after this I think he’s a sensible centrist. Simon Jordan recently said “if you don’t change your mind when you have new information then that makes you a fool” he was saying that about his initial opinions of Ten Hag.

[@Lufe6301]

actually Winston Churchill said that many years ago. Only fanatics hold onto views that are clearly proved to be wrong when new information comes to light. have a great day

[@alfabdul793]

This guy is 2 faced!!! He will go with the winning team😂

[@Thundawich]

I'm confused about one point. If the reason you want libel to be criminal is because of the consequences it has to the lives of the individual, why does it matter where the thing is published? Some bloke down the pub saying a lie could have greater consequences for you than a national newspaper doing a 6 month spree of lives depending on circumstances.

[@joannware6228]

"For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." I Corinthians 11:31 (KJV) Anyone who denies this lies to himself. "There is no true, no lasting spirit of charity apart from the practice of religion. Therefore, we cannot keep those commandments which teach us our duty to men unless we are keeping those which teach us our duty to God.” -Fr. Basil W. Maturin, p. 160

[@njhoepner]

You're assuming 1) that there is a god; and 2) that it is specifically the Christian god - neither of which you can prove or even demonstrate on convincing evidence. I also cannot think of an act of charity that an atheist cannot perform. I'd go further and say that a "lasting spirit of charity" only requires the recognition that the rest of humanity is part of the same group we are...which also does not require religion - in fact I'd say religion quite often works against that recognition.

[@joannware6228]

@@njhoepner You labor under many misconceptions and deceptions.

[@joannware6228]

God loves you regardless even more than you love yourself. The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. His great ego will not let him admit his flawed condition but it also condemns him to live only with himself eternally in that flawed state.

[@Big_DT]

Let's assume that a someone has filed a court case for libel or slander and it has reached a US courtroom. Generally speaking, in the US, both libel and slander are defensible with truth. So if you're accused of slandering or libeling someone and whatever you said is true, then you are not guilty of the offense. Additionally, if you use the simple phrase 'In my opinion...' before you state whatever it is you are stating/writing, then you likely are not committing slander/libel. These 2 defenses seem to take care of much of the problems associated with these 2 offenses. As far as other types of free speech, like seditious speech, that is a different story, and we are watching it play out in the court cases against former President Trump.

[@JP-sm4cs]

Seeing people like KK pretend that harm can be objectively measured is always funny. Whenever you call someone out on this they always retreat into using someone else's personal failings or issues as a scapegoat.

[@gileshumphry]

I don't think that's his point. His point is that only harm that can be objectively measured should carry legal weight when it comes to restricting speech.

[@ryanhau1073]

In regards to Copyright, I'm sorta reminded of that Time when CBS went after a Star Trek Fan Production known as Axxenar. Someone at CBS saw some of the Production of Axxenar and sent a Copyright Claim to them trying to shut down the Production believing it may harm their brand, Ironically the act of taking legal action caused CBS to harm their own reputation and brand more than if they didn't do anything.

[@thequantumshade1556]

It really is incredible the degree of nuance elicited from an otherwise “absolutist“ when it’s something that might potentially harm them.

[@InfinityProTeam]

He said he isn’t an absolutist

[@FoivosApostolou]

How is he an absolutist? He clearly stated libel, defamation, and a couple of other forms of speech should have legal repercussions

[@khaderlander2429]

Interestingly it may have been influenced by enlightenments sundering of morality from law. So Alex's calling KK's answer as begging the question is on point. Psychological and Spiritual Harm: One area of divergence between free speech absolutism and the harm principle lies in their consideration of psychological and spiritual harm. Free speech absolutism typically prioritizes the protection of speech regardless of its potential psychological or spiritual consequences. It argues that individuals should be responsible for their own emotional reactions to speech and that limiting speech based on potential psychological harm would be subjective and could stifle open discourse. On the other hand, proponents of the harm principle may argue that certain forms of speech can cause significant psychological or spiritual harm, such as hate speech that targets marginalized groups or religious defamation that deeply offends believers. They believe that protecting individuals from such harm is crucial for maintaining a healthy and inclusive society. Example: A debate might arise regarding the use of derogatory slurs or hate speech targeting a specific race, religion, or gender. Free speech absolutists might argue that even though such speech may cause emotional distress or offend individuals, it should still be protected as long as it does not incite physical harm. Conversely, proponents of the harm principle might argue that hate speech can perpetuate systemic discrimination, contribute to psychological harm, and create a hostile environment for certain groups, warranting restrictions to prevent such harm. In summary, the difference between free speech absolutism and the harm principle lies in their approach to regulating speech based on the potential harm it may cause. Free speech absolutism prioritizes unrestricted expression, while the harm principle allows for limitations when speech poses a direct threat or causes tangible harm to individuals. The consideration of psychological and spiritual harm is a point of contention, with free speech absolutism generally placing less weight on such harms compared to the harm principle.

[@johnno6183]

Seems the simplest question is a problem for free speechers.

[@folee_edge]

I commend you for having this conversation with KK; he is a very intelligent and rational man.

[@SpenceJS87]

lol

[@frankzappa9148]

Imagine wanting to restrict peoples speech. Ya know, like tyrants do.

[@zwatwashdc]

The power differential is key here.

[@PianoDentist]

Does one own ones reputation? Or does the formation of a reputation reside with those who are assessing your character? Should "your" reputation be within your direct control, and not merely be a result of your actions or behaviour and how people form their opinion of you?

[@jbapples4611]

I don’t think it’s a question of owning it, but having some control over it in regards to blatant and provable lies seems reasonable. It’s a good question tho, and as such you’ll be rewarded with an hour in the canoe.

[@guyledouche357]

Making someone lose money isn't "harm" It's theivery.

[@moesheen654]

Words instigate action, if those words are completely false, that's an issue.