Start with the end: it is not an easy one. and it has been challenging philosophers for a while (though it is certainly not the most baffling definition challenge around). As related to this discussion, the right for freedom of speech is taken as very intimate, as a part of being complete (within a social environment, granted, but shutting you up is close enough to telling you what to think, according to some views), while actions (with a more "physical presence" in the world) are taken as more likely to affect your fellow members of society. I'm not saying this solves it (hardly), rather that there is quite a simple intuition that people tend to follow (and at least that is not too hard to see).

As for the rights comments you made, I'm not sure in which way you mean that. It sounds like you are suspicious of the whole "right thing" altogether, and mostly for it's ambiguous nature/lack of clear cut justification-manifestation of "where do these rights actually come from". (I take that mainly from "To me 'rights' don't have much relationship to the way society works, or is forced to work", which I hardly suspect you mean descriptively - surely you'd know that is not universally true - but rather that "they shouldn't be" - etc. ). If so then sure, you're not alone in that (I don't know exactly what your field is` but you seem to know something about it). Philosophers been fighting it, and the challenge to show the above has always been there.

However, it does not mean necessarily we need to fold and give it up entirely. Even if there really are "contradicting", indeed, "seemingly excluding" rights (though obviously that would make balancing them more tricky. I have to admit at least that 🙂 ). I'd say the big question (at least politically, if not deeply, or theoretically) is always: what's the alternative? what sort of arrangement would provide us with the necessary protection of our individual, as well as social-communal needs, interests, desires, etc?

As for the specific case (which I must say I find less interesting by the moment) it is, at least to me personally, quite sad if he got the harsh treatment "because he's no one". That cases tend to be resolved in favor of power (and, as you say, manifesting injustice) is both the way things are and a reason for us to be on guard. Nothing new here, actually. But this is one that never goes away.

Well Yuv 'rights' don't really exist, they're an artificial construct of society, and if you agree to live in a society you have to obey their rules,
For Stacy its the UK society and for Qatar it's the international society (Burnsy), anyone can go into the wilderness and shout anything they like.

And the reason why cases are resolved by power is because ultimately all authority comes from power, my house my rules.

Biggus wrote:

'rights' don't really exist, they're an artificial construct of society

so... do they exist as a construct of society? cos then you might think society "constructs" rules that establish rights.

and if you agree to live in a society you have to obey their rules

and if those rules have established said rights, that seems to mean that everybody needs to respect the rights declared (constructed or what have you) by society.

And the reason why cases are resolved by power is because ultimately all authority comes from power, my house my rules.

Some people along the way thought they may do well if they used this insight, and come together in some sort of agreement or pact, which will combine their power, thus making sure they possess the greatest power around. They have the authority, and they can live a life they have all agreed to (quite possibly, one which forbids infringement of "rights"; which according to this no longer look like pink flying elephants, but like these strong things that have authority, the land lords).

People been thinking up such shit for at least two and a half millennia (they still do, very seriously). Funny thing: though they did seem to notice power, authority, agreement, rules and different ways of constructing a common life in their wake, they don't all agree. Well, not on everything 🙂 .

Rights don't exist, absolutely. Nobody has the right to free anything. To me, it seems quite clear that nobody has the 'right' to punish someone either. Societal constructs are not, however, unnatural. They are a product of urban living, and have been created for the sake of individual survival through collective order.

My big question is, at what point is order restricting freedom in a way that is nonessential for individual survival (through the collective order and safety). For me, there are inherent dangers to living in a society of other animals in close quarters (Twitter makes me claustrophobic its so crowded). I think that being verbally offended is simply not damaging to individual survival enough that I would sacrifice a freedom to avoid it. If offending someone causes them to act in a violent manner, the violence is what should be punished, not the verbal offense. The violent offender was not able to deal with something society threw at it, took action that caused a direct threat to the individual survival of another person, and a very real crime was committed. Individual survival can be threatened in many ways, and sometimes it CAN be caused verbally (slander resulting in job loss, etc.). For me, this was clearly not the case, and hatred in and of itself, motivated by race or otherwise, should not be a crime.

Different societies have different rules, different values, and different definitions of survival. That doesn't mean we have to necessarily respect their culture. No law, society, culture, nation, judge, etc. have a "right" to anyone's respect or compliance. It's all a choice we make.

@[deleted] I agree with you on the following:

  • Morality has its genesis in the requirements of harmonious human coexistence, not post hoc affirmation of nebulous, contradictory 'rights'
  • A best case for working with society's ideals of freedom requires unpleasant tradeoffs
  • Moral principles are only truly relevant in so far as they can be enforced
  • By and large the law has no place in the affairs of isolated individuals
  • Though social and cultural context is of definitive importance in assessing right and wrong, no culture has a proper claim to moral absolutism

I don't agree that verbal offences aren't in general as severe or significant as other offences - I don't agree with the category distinction between speech and action, in other words. I don't agree that "individual survival" has to be explicitly threatened by hate speech offences for them to be punishable, as I think justice should account for the possibilities that attend upon offences, as well as the actual outcomes. The lines are blurred.

To the extent we agree on principles the whole argument is subject to ethical slicing ("how severe" a speech offence can be and "what is an appropriate freedom to partially relinquish to prevent hate speech"?). It comes down to an irresoluble difference of opinion on a proportionate punishment for notably extreme racist speech.

Arguments about the grounds of justice are hairy. Values of retribution, deterrent, rehabilitation, and proportionality combine to make the question of sentencing unsolvable in practical terms. I'm guessing everyone in this thread has a slightly different view, but any given law is required to take only one, relatively consistent systematic approach to calibrating offences.

In my opinion, since the punishment meted out to Stacey for his offence is rarely applied and isn't particularly heavy in this instance, there's no major problem here.

Coombs wrote:

Rights don't exist, absolutely. Nobody has the right to free anything. To me, it seems quite clear that nobody has the 'right' to punish someone either. Societal constructs are not, however, unnatural. They are a product of urban living, and have been created for the sake of individual survival through collective order.

My big question is, at what point is order restricting freedom in a way that is nonessential for individual survival (through the collective order and safety). For me, there are inherent dangers to living in a society of other animals in close quarters (Twitter makes me claustrophobic its so crowded). I think that being verbally offended is simply not damaging to individual survival enough that I would sacrifice a freedom to avoid it. If offending someone causes them to act in a violent manner, the violence is what should be punished, not the verbal offense. The violent offender was not able to deal with something society threw at it, took action that caused a direct threat to the individual survival of another person, and a very real crime was committed. Individual survival can be threatened in many ways, and sometimes it CAN be caused verbally (slander resulting in job loss, etc.). For me, this was clearly not the case, and hatred in and of itself, motivated by race or otherwise, should not be a crime.

Different societies have different rules, different values, and different definitions of survival. That doesn't mean we have to necessarily respect their culture. No law, society, culture, nation, judge, etc. have a "right" to anyone's respect or compliance. It's all a choice we make.

For many people violent language is offensive and hurtful and of course is provocative to others to act, it can be as dangerous as getting your skull cracked open although granted- not as obvious or immediate.
But I agree, rights like those other abstract constructs of society beauty, justice, anti-football etc don't really exist, and as Mao said all power comes from the barrel of a gun, because without the last resort to force any law is meaningless and err- unenforceable.

Coombs wrote:

Rights don't exist, absolutely.

Absolutely, as in no sense of the word (or words - rights and exist)?

Nobody has the right to free anything... to punish someone either. Societal constructs (not... unnatural).. have been created for the sake of individual survival through collective order.
My big question is, at what point is order restricting freedom in a way that is nonessential for individual survival (through the collective order and safety).

It seems according to this that though no one has any natural right (god given, or "existing" in some of the senses I think you have in mind), that humans have a double (possibly conflicting) interest: the individual one, and the common one. Since they live together ("urban living") it is not unnatural to them to create rules that see for those double edged interests, including voluntarily restricting themselves. For example they might restrict any one from harming anyone else.
Now if they all agree on that, and all commit to the rules and take upon themselves the duties as indicated by the law, it would seem that according to this each and every one of the citizens might conclude that they have a right not to be harmed by someone else (and other rights which mirror the indicated duties in the same way).

This is not some kind of fairy tale: in most western countries that is basically how things are understood to be.
It is understood in a strong enough way the the said rights are commonly organized in different "bills of rights", and are a corner stone for most judicial systems. (I'm not claiming that is the only route to induce rights, or that indeed the said bills consist of only such right. Indeed, different societies do have their ways, some of which are not necessarily defensible).

No law, society, culture, nation, judge, etc. have a "right" to anyone's respect or compliance. It's all a choice we make.

So we can return to the beginning: they may not have a god given right, but then you said it yourself: the societal construct is natural, and the agreement people make for their own interest just is the choice they make. That general, wider and interest engulfing choice to live with/under a pact - to abide by the laws we made ourselves - has to mean that we have a duty to respect the judge, the law, etc. - and that just means that they do have a right to such respect. I'm not saying it - you did.

In a less abstract way (more to the specific case), I agree with your intuition that here the interests of society (or the presumed ones, I'm not sure if the real ones) are too easily preferred to the individual's (thus trumping his rights 🙂 ).
I don't, however, support the too easy distinction between the said and done (physical violence - verbal one). It is rather complicated, and judgment there needs to take account of more than one principle, I think, but the simple "verbal just is violence lite" doesn't cover it all (think of consequences: one physically violent act leaves somebody dirty and hurting, but nothing will remain beyond a shower and a good night sleep; vs another plainly verbal act, which directly instigates a chain of events that cause the death of several human beings. And no, you can't escape with "it's the killings and not the uttering" - just build the case in a way it is the uttering. Enough times it is).

Burnwinter wrote:

I agree with:

  • Moral principles are only truly relevant in so far as they can be enforced
  • By and large the law has no place in the affairs of isolated individuals

Nice post there, burnsy (I agree with much of it, though I'm not sure about the Stacey case itself. Anyway, I didn't really dig in to what he really did, and, shitty person that I am, my heart doesn't really bleed for him). Two small points about the bolded quotes:

Relevant - don't mean to be fussy, but - relevant for what? surely not relevant to care about. We may hold this "healthy" pragmatic stance in general, and create realistic laws that can be followed and sentenced upon. They need to take account of circumstances to be realistic. But if it is not relevant in any other sense, we lose sight of changing circumstances, and the need to change the laws. In other words: moral principles do have a relevance beyond the possibility of enforcing (think of a clear moral intuition which we just ignore for the sake of making pragmatic laws, because at this time you can't really follow the details. Now the next day someone comes with this new technology that makes the details a very small matter, thus making the un-enforceable of yesterday a simple affair today. If we gave up on the non-relevant yesterday, we'd be ticked today. We'd have to settle for the less moral principle).

The second I think you mean "private affairs"? I which case I'd agree, obviously. But not so if it's as it reads.

What I mean is that when making and enforcing laws the officers of state should visualise how things should be, but then proceed based on what can be done.

Supposed parts of the social covenant that go unenforced are untested, unexercised, and yes, irrelevant. The Occupy movement, for example, has exposed that the right to free assembly has been eroded while not being exercised.

I would rather violate an idiot's free speech for £1 if it would obtain the same nett social dividend that can be achieved by patiently explaining the facts of life to him for £10. Of course, incarceration is expensive, so we trade off on the assumption that others like Stacey will be deterred by the reports of his sentence.

Regarding "private affairs" I think there are blurred lines there, too, but by and large in so much as they're extra-social, they need not, within reason, be subject to the social contract.

Not to divert the discussion but, as you mentioned it, I cycled past the 'occupy limehouse' settlement earlier in the week. It's the most pitiful thing I have ever seen; they are camping on a strip of grass no more than 10 square metres and in a place that maybe 60-70% of people in the local area aren't even aware exists, let alone the rest of the nation/world.

There are maybe 15 tents at the absolute maximum there and the whole thing is a really bad joke.

Just to contextualize that a little for those without an in-depth knowledge of London; I imagine that they are supposed to be 'demonstrating' or 'disrupting' the canary wharf area which is basically the finance district now. (big red circle)

I didn't bother to attend the local Occupy protest here (which was even more pitiful, and even more entitled).

It was never going to be an armed proletarian uprising / mass movement / Arab Spring like scenario in any OECD country though, that was just the delusion of handful of Marxists.

Makes it even more interesting to see that in many different countries governments have felt obliged to send in riot police on dawn raids to displace such a motley crew of camping yippies.

That much is true and probably the reason why that settlement is so far away; the canary wharf private defence force wouldn't let them get anywhere near. Same reason the riots and looting had no effect here.

As an aside and while the pics are up, that four seasons hotel near the big roundabout is where Arsenal used to stay pre-home game. Not sure if that is the case this season, as I haven't seen them in a while.

Yeah, the Occupy folks I know are quite aware of what they can and can't get away with - not really that interested in confronting police. I think that's been the case most places.

You should've seen how laughable Occupy was in Calgary in early Canadian winter, actually 😆

The 99% meme was a striking internet success, and one which highlighted the incapacity of representative democracy to prosecute the hypothetical 'tyranny' of the majority. As in, it doesn't allow the masses to protect themselves from exploitation, which is the only thing it's even theoretically much good at.

EDIT: removed a pretty OT bit of incendiary nonsense at the end.

shit - just missed it. I'd love to have seen it (removed stuff 🙂 ). Don't mean to re-open anything, but just to clarify:

state should visualise how things should be color=#FF0000[/color], but then proceed based on what can be done color=#FF0000[/color].

(1) would be the "idealistic" version, and (2) the pragmatic.
In the earlier post I meant that though we may want to conduct our affairs with a fair bit of pragmatism, we don't necessarily need to forget about all else (or, if we do, maybe keep our pragmatism with broad enough horizons to be able to revise itself, and import idealistic stuff when circumstances permit). And, IMO, the occupy example and eroded right shows (as you wanted? contrary? I wasn't sure) that this idealistic horizon is always relevant, rather than prove it's irrelevance. Question is, of course (as I tried to indicate earlier) relevant in what sense, and for which purpose.

I would rather violate an idiot's free speech for £1 if it would obtain the same nett social dividend that can be achieved by patiently explaining the facts of life to him for £10. Of course, incarceration is expensive, so we trade off on the assumption that others like Stacey will be deterred by the reports of his sentence.

Parts of this are surely sensible: that "numbers count" (most philosophers today don't argue with that), though I'm not sure if there wouldn't be some strong objection in the specific case of balancing these specific values (freedom of speech vs efficiency; or other forms of public good) in this way. To be sure, that he's "an idiot" is a bit peculiar here: on one hand we all know what you mean, and are in some way biased in that direction. On the other, we might want to keep it impartial, as much as possible, even though we know we're paying a price on particular events. The danger is always that we'll get it wrong, and the slippery slope of allowing such bias to lead us, and you never know which values would be preferred next.

A rights type thinking in this context is in a way "slippery slope proof": it is by nature relating to absolute things. "you can't do this to me". "I have a right to..." - not be harmed, legal council, lead the private life that I choose, etc.

Captain wrote:

Not to divert the discussion but, as you mentioned it, I cycled past the 'occupy limehouse' settlement earlier in the week. It's the most pitiful thing I have ever seen; they are camping on a strip of grass no more than 10 square metres and in a place that maybe 60-70% of people in the local area aren't even aware exists, let alone the rest of the nation/world.

There are maybe 15 tents at the absolute maximum there and the whole thing is a really bad joke.

😆

Todays youth will only rebel if you take away their X-boxes.

Burnwinter wrote:

You should've seen how laughable Occupy was in Calgary in early Canadian winter, actually 😆

The 99% meme was a striking internet success, and one which highlighted the incapacity of representative democracy to prosecute the hypothetical 'tyranny' of the majority. As in, it doesn't allow the masses to protect themselves from exploitation, which is the only thing it's even theoretically much good at.

EDIT: removed a pretty OT bit of incendiary nonsense at the end.

😆 Thats funny, and a little sad.

Contrast this kind of protest to the internet "strike" by Wiki, that really frightened the Man.
Disruption on the internet is the best manifestation of the 21st century, and would be cyber-fuhrer Stacy knew it.

Edit: Aww Burnsy, put it back in.

yuv wrote:

Absolutely, as in no sense of the word (or words - rights and exist)?

Yes and yes, but in this context I really only meant that rights in an absolute sense (as in beyond the zaheri world) do not exist, and that I absolutely agree with that stance.

I do think it is a double-edged sword insofar as the collective order vs personal liberties debate. What I meant to stress is that how far you want to be cut on one side or the other is a subjective choice and, perhaps more importantly, a cultural choice (as in, not a divine choice).

Also, I did not mean to imply (if I did) that verbal abuse is not hurtful, and I understand that words are extremely powerful and can set events in motion that can directly effect the individual survival of many, many people (millions, sometimes). It is my outlook, however, that these are the dangers that we risk by living as part of society, and subscribing to a culture/code of laws in the first place. If we do not accept this risk, and try to work as a society of societies to avoid such catastrophes in a peaceful and reasonable manner (rather than smite small-time offenders with guilty prejudice, thus removing the blame from "us") then we risk getting into the territory of "preemptive strikes" and cops will start arresting themselves for crimes they believe they are fated to commit based on a couple of negligent words spoken in haste (or stupidity). A lot of things have been done on the basis of "crime prevention" that have resulted in a lot of death and pain.

Last thing I'd like to say on that topic is that the cause of most (if not all) criminal behavior is human (i.e. "because" of something someone said or did), and that punishing a human for potentially causing violence or directly endangering individual survival opens the door to punishment for suspicion of wrong-doing. When suspects become criminals then we are guilty before proven innocent, and that terrifies me more than Liam Stacey's tweets.

@[deleted] Since a knowable absolute standard of idiocy is both theoretically, and certainly pragmatically impossible, I'm happy to content myself with my own affirmation of Stacey's idiocy, coupled with the consensus implied by "we all know what you mean, and are in some way biased in that direction" ...

Since inaction is itself a form of action, and admitting "debate" a form of concession in argument that in many cases is the only foothold an equally groundless opposition requires to push itself to the fore, I still say: bang him up. Simple answer.

Coombs and Burnsy - I enjoy discussing this, there's much to say, but I feel we got to the core. We share some things, we definitely have differences on others, but it's all cool. Just takes a bit of time, and I feel it's unfair each time I write one of these, knowing it can't even scratch the surface.

I find very interesting how some on here reflect the philosophical zeit geist, despite a defiant spirit. And on the other hand, here am I, normally defiant, but find myself having to persuade people there are some senses of the concept "rights" which can be real...🙂. Quite funny.

I apologize for sometimes dragging this beyond what is intuitively satisfactory - it's not something I can resist (a type of a self slippery slope I can't resist, as I've been in this type of shit for too many years). But credit to you guys for an open mind, and very sensible views and perceptive approach. I'll continue when I have a bit of time.

Ah yes - coombs: the worry, as a "where could this go", is something I share. Also regarding the "what's worse" type of sphere (which, in the beginning of this, led me to more or less the same thought as yours: that prick could personally be kicked all the way to hell and back, as far as I'm concerned; but he's not really the dramatic story in this).

@[deleted] The discussion reminds me of the bad/hallowed old days of Usenet.

Interesting conversation, but I feel we've veered into territory where we're all underqualified to continue, and way off topic. To be fair I'm very familiar with that situation 🙂

Just hope Muamba recovers well and Stacey learns his lesson.