Right at the beginning he incorrectly claims it was argued that free speech ends at others feelings. Which is not correct at all. He actually argued that free speech ends where libel and slander begin. Meaning we have an obligation to protect others unless legal cause justifies.
I stopped watching at this point. Back then slander and libel were much easier to prosecute. Especially as one's reputation was a form of currency (good moral character). His point was that free speech doesn't and shouldn't open the door for unfettered character assassination. As such, even with free speech, there exists a social obligation to uphold such standards.
he incorrectly claims it was argued that free speech ends at others feelings.
Ubersoy doesn't say Mill said that; he said a modern interpretation of Mill's harm principle would unfortunately come to that conclusion. Mill would prefer a focus on slander and libel, but it's easy to see how "category of offences against others, may rightly be prohibited" could be abused.
I just told you the modern interpretation. It's the same as the original interpretation. He simply doesn't understand what was said nor the context in which it was stated.
I just told you the modern interpretation. It's the same as the original interpretation.
You don't think microagressions and speech is violence are changes in understanding of the harm principle? You don't see the left's constant framing of everything to be an application of the harm principle for anti-society ends?
(post is archived)