Why freedom of speech but not freedom to physically injure?

So I'm allowed to call you a fucking retard, racially abuse you, call you a slutty whore. And we can all agree that most of us are capable of being hurt by these comments.

Against this background, why is it so different to be hurt physically that it is illegal to do so, while verbal abuse is legal? One is capable of killing you and the other isn't, that's obvious. Is there much else? Would it be possible to regulate violence reasonably and sensibly, and within limits?

People say they are glad for their freedom of speech and wouldn't like it to be taken away, but is it only because they live in a society lacking freedom of violence that they do not decry its absence too? Would people be nicer if they at least knew they had the option of lashing out physically?

 

Speech is a recourse against violence, and an alternative for violence.

Speech does not cause any definite problems, and further, can be intreperted any number of ways, it's a very subtle and fluid thing, even when it looks, to some, very in your face and as though it could only mean one thing.

Violence can not be used to heal someone, violence can not be used to explain things (other than violence, itself) violence is simply violence, it's pretty flat and boring there's not much to it.

If I tell you you're a dumb whore, you decide how to take that, and that determines the damage. If I hit you in the nose, the damage is determined by how I decide to hit you, as opposed to how you decide to take it.

And even if there is harmful pointless speech, there are two problems with outlawing it. One, it is hard to quantify, as I already said, and if any speech is outlawed, it is a very slippery slope, until you can only say what those who seek to control you want you to say. It's not EVEN far from there to an orwellian idea of controlling thought, because speech and thought are so linked: if you can not voice dissent, eventually, people can not THINK dissent. And the other problem is essentially my example for the first problem, that speech and thought are linked, and if you outlaw speech you outlaw thought. And you can't always trust those making laws to defend you, or trust the future application to be good, as we see every day with the war on drugs.

And then we get into asking why we need free thought..... and that's one that I will take to be obvious and not even touch, for the time being.

But basically we outlaw very little speech because if you start outlawing speech you endanger ALL speech. By comparison, we actually allow much MORE violence than we outlaw speech, if you think about it. If someone's being violent towards you, you can defend yourself. We have an army, an official governmental branch of violence, as does each state and nearly every municipality. Regulated violence is allowed, and regulated speech is allowed, though they're sort of inverses, as to how they're regulated.

 

are you trying to say if someone talks shit to you that you should be able to kick their ass?????? in anarchy you could do that. but sorry I find physical violence far worse than any words. try to stay at peace with your mind. its all in your head. don't let words get to you. don't trip just relax. its all good. take a breath and look around at the building or the sky those words aint doing anything to you. unless someone spits on you or shoves you or socks you it aint doing anything to me alright. chill

haha but for realz I feel you man. I get pissed off sometime to and feel like socking someone hard. there is certain situations where you can fight someone if you feel like it and other times where you just gotta keep cool.

 

A pretty good response. Though the question was meant to be more about why violence is outlawed rather than why speech is free.

How do we assess harm? Physical harm is one that is easy to assess, but why is non-physical harm so unimportant? You sort of gave an answer here:

Do I always decide how to take it? I'm not sure I would be brave enough to suggest that to a woman whose daughter has committed suicide over comments from her bitchy friends at school. If we were completely mechanical, rational beings then I would agree there is no obligation to be affected by speech. I don't think there is a single person in the world that applies to though, everyone has been affected dramatically by speech, lives have been ruined, etc. If that kind of harm is deemed okay then it might be argued it is also okay to harm someone physically too.

Also, the physiological basis of psychiatric illness has only recently been recognized in the relatively long history of medicine. If laws protecting the person developed around more "physical" types of harm which was the principal type of harm recognized, it makes sense that notions of harm which do not include non-physical harm are not the subject of the law's protection.

 

People do have the option of lashing out physically. Just as they have the option to drink and drive, steal, and shoot someone. No, they're not legal options but they are options. Everything comes with consequences. I really don't think anyone would be 'nicer' if it was legal to physically abuse someone. Relationships would be more based on the individuals physical power over others, and what would merit using appropriate physical force, apart from self-defense or coming to the defense of another???

 

unless you count surgery, amputations, rebreaking bones so they can heal right, etc.

well i wouldn't say it to the mom, but everyone knows the daughter chose to react the way she did.

 

I don't know about other states but Georgia Code 16-11-39 states:

A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct when such person commits any of the following:

Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person's presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person's presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called "fighting words"

Without provocation, uses obscene and vulgar or profane language in the presence of or by telephone to a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace.

Any person who commits the offense of disorderly conduct shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

Not just Georgia, you won't find a state or country in the world that doesn't limit free speech. And that's just it, if we accept what Roorshack says about speech doing no harm compared with violence, it should be completely unlimited.

 

there is no such thing as free speech so your question is invalid.

 

I would much rather someone say something awful to me than for them to physically injure me.

 

You're right walsh we should do away with freedom of speech and Justin Bieber.

The Justin Bieber thing is a earmark in with that amendment so at least some good can come of it.

 

Well, I thought speech deserved more justification, like I said, there isn't much to violence, it's sort of flat and.... violent. Speech is communication, and violence is not. It CAN communicate things, but in general, is a recourse for those who can not communicate.

As for the suicide because of words type of thing, we do make the assumption that people have to defend themselves SOME. The threat of not being able to voice dissent or ideas is greater than the threat of having to use logic in filtering what people to say to you. Some people may choose not to, but everyone has the ability to apply logic to speech that they encounter. Applying logic to speech will protect you (and if sound logic does not protect you, than it is you that has the problem, if there is no logical way around what is said to you). But applying logic to violence does nothing at all. You can not choose to not be hurt by a fist or bullet, but you can choose to not be hurt by a word.

As for free speech allowing people who don't use logic to become hurt, the world is logical, if they can't use logic they lost the game long before they heard the hurtful speech.

 

Seriously, I know you can be argumentative without appearing this blatantly stupid.

Medicine is NOT violence, violence hurts others, medicine may be PAINFUL, but is intended to help the health of the patient, as a whole, and is undertaken with the consent of the patient.

 

if someone commits suicide because of mean comments then that is their fault for making a stupid decision. how weak. ending your life just because someone is mean to you???? sorry but I don't agree and think that is just straight up dumb.

and actually there is no such thing as always having freedom of speech. there are plenty of places you can't say whatever you want. at school if you cuss the teacher out you get suspended. at work if you say the wrong things you get fired. if you say certain things to a cop you get arrested. so you really can't say whatever you want. but yes you there are plenty of times where you can make fun of someone and talk crap and say stuff. but if someone lets it get to them that is their own fault. . every person has control over their brain. and I am glad there are not rules against it. you should be able to talk shit if you want. laws against cyber bullying and laws against shit talking are dumb.


and even comparing words to physical violence is dumb in my opinion. I don't even think there is anything else to talk about. words and violence are not even close.

 

I think a rule of thumb when determining legality should be, "Does this harm others?"

(the drug trade amongst other laws clearly demonstrates the government doesn't agree with this sentiment, but I think most rational people would agree with this).

There is no way to measure the harm of speech, nor is there a way to draw a firm line between innocent speech and harmful speech. Therefore a very liberal stance is the only way to approach the issue of free speech laws. If some speech is allowed then all of it must be allowed.

Whereas there is a clear line with violence. Violence always hurts someone else.

There are, however, written into our code of laws different degrees of violence. This is why crimes of passion are treated differently than cold blooded murder, and why murder is treated differently than assault.

 

violence is outlawed cus there is no mental choice. when someone socks you in the face and knocks your teeth out you had no choice there. it causes pain and having your teeth knocked out cost money to fix. now if someone talks shit nothing is happening to you at all. it is all in your head and you can trip out about it or realize that you have the power to show that person that they can't do anything to you. a shit talker is only satisfied if they get a reaction and know they are getting under your skin.

 

The only thing to do with good advice.is to pass it on.it is never any euce to oneself'

Oscar Wilde'

 

violence is equally an alternative to speech

but then so is eating a banana

yum.

 

and anyways - if someone says something disgusting to me

i will punch them in the face

it doesn't bother me how politically correct it is

some guy i did not know told me he was going to rape my sister

'joking about...'

i punched him in the face.

maybe it's the celtic way.

but there's a simple solution

learn not to say stupid shit to people - easiest way to avoid violence

rather than trying to criminalize otherwise justified behaviour.

 

I beat a guy for saying "I fucked your mother" when he thought it was cool walking though a crowd insulting people.