We're all (in Western Civilization) a bit lost, or at least floundering, if we don't have enough politicians and bureaucrats who at least engage with the content/interviews produced by people like Mr Doyle, Konstantin Kisin, Douglas Murray, Bjorn Lomborg, and so on. Someone said something recently, perhaps Michael Gove in a conversation with Dominic Cummings, about the calibre of people who went into public and political life at the time of Pitt the Younger (the late 18th century). There were articulate, intelligent and well-informed responsible individuals - a number of people in the current House of Commons wouldn't get a look-in. What happened seems to be that the brightest (and potentially "best") grew up in a world in which what the brilliant did was (a) go to Silicon Valley, (b) go into investment banking, and/or (c) go into AI. So who was left to go into politics? Unless they felt a personal commitment to public service, it had to be the ones (seething with self-confidence and able to be thick-skinned) in the next intellectual tier down. I really don't see what we can do about this as a society. You can't pay all MPs more than the bonuses of self-driven entrepreneurs. It's got to be something to do with value shifts and not just remuneration. The idea of being run by the David Lammys, or worse the tyrannical potential of the Owen Joneses, is just too dreadful to be contemplated. Sorry, I don't have a solution!
You said: "Laws against inciting violence are justifiable, because violence impinges directly on the human rights of others. But laws against inciting negative human emotions veer directly into the territory of the Thought Police."
I agree with your second sentence in this quote, however, I've never been satisfied with the supposed logic of "incitement to violence" as a justification for restricting speech that you accept as reasonable in the quote's first sentence.
Individuals are either responsible for their actions or not. We are either responsible for self-control, or we are not. Externalizing responsibility for the consequences of a violent act through "incitement to violence" logic blurs that line. I used to work at a battered women's shelter. It is common to hear abusive spouses say: "If you hadn't said X, I wouldn't have had to do Y". Does the "incitement to violence" speech restriction carve-out not allow responsibility for the consequences of violent actions to be wrongly shifted away from the actor? I actually wonder if the "incitement to violence" justification for speech restriction hasn't set the table for "hate speech" restriction.
We're all (in Western Civilization) a bit lost, or at least floundering, if we don't have enough politicians and bureaucrats who at least engage with the content/interviews produced by people like Mr Doyle, Konstantin Kisin, Douglas Murray, Bjorn Lomborg, and so on. Someone said something recently, perhaps Michael Gove in a conversation with Dominic Cummings, about the calibre of people who went into public and political life at the time of Pitt the Younger (the late 18th century). There were articulate, intelligent and well-informed responsible individuals - a number of people in the current House of Commons wouldn't get a look-in. What happened seems to be that the brightest (and potentially "best") grew up in a world in which what the brilliant did was (a) go to Silicon Valley, (b) go into investment banking, and/or (c) go into AI. So who was left to go into politics? Unless they felt a personal commitment to public service, it had to be the ones (seething with self-confidence and able to be thick-skinned) in the next intellectual tier down. I really don't see what we can do about this as a society. You can't pay all MPs more than the bonuses of self-driven entrepreneurs. It's got to be something to do with value shifts and not just remuneration. The idea of being run by the David Lammys, or worse the tyrannical potential of the Owen Joneses, is just too dreadful to be contemplated. Sorry, I don't have a solution!
I’d characterise the law itself as hate speech in its own terms.
Thank you for this piece! A question though...
You said: "Laws against inciting violence are justifiable, because violence impinges directly on the human rights of others. But laws against inciting negative human emotions veer directly into the territory of the Thought Police."
I agree with your second sentence in this quote, however, I've never been satisfied with the supposed logic of "incitement to violence" as a justification for restricting speech that you accept as reasonable in the quote's first sentence.
Individuals are either responsible for their actions or not. We are either responsible for self-control, or we are not. Externalizing responsibility for the consequences of a violent act through "incitement to violence" logic blurs that line. I used to work at a battered women's shelter. It is common to hear abusive spouses say: "If you hadn't said X, I wouldn't have had to do Y". Does the "incitement to violence" speech restriction carve-out not allow responsibility for the consequences of violent actions to be wrongly shifted away from the actor? I actually wonder if the "incitement to violence" justification for speech restriction hasn't set the table for "hate speech" restriction.
Brilliant post! Maybe we should make reading George Orwell mandarory for state employment.