"What is 'harm'?" is a good line to examine. If almost everyone accepts that some non-governmental restrictions on speech in the name of harm reduction are legitimate (e.g. the n-word), then the question becomes how to balance harm reduction and free speech. But as you note, that depends on what constitutes harm. Using anti-gay slurs as …
"What is 'harm'?" is a good line to examine. If almost everyone accepts that some non-governmental restrictions on speech in the name of harm reduction are legitimate (e.g. the n-word), then the question becomes how to balance harm reduction and free speech. But as you note, that depends on what constitutes harm. Using anti-gay slurs as insults is a good example of something I think is harmful, and the social pressure against it that grew over my lifetime is a good example of a social pressure-induced speech restriction that doesn't unacceptably violate free speech. But making "hurts my feelings" the standard for "harm" is too broad, and warrants pushback. Primarily, it's this process of line-finding that I'm defending.
And I agree on the social media mobbing point. It's an important way the current moment is different from the in-other-ways-similar PC panic of the 1990s. It changes the social shunning dynamic, creating a new mechanism that can, at least sometimes, be an illiberal force. Some is just people expressing their opinions, some is an organized effort that's more about power than reasonable harm reduction. Some has elements of both. I'm not quite sure where the line is there.
"What is 'harm'?" is a good line to examine. If almost everyone accepts that some non-governmental restrictions on speech in the name of harm reduction are legitimate (e.g. the n-word), then the question becomes how to balance harm reduction and free speech. But as you note, that depends on what constitutes harm. Using anti-gay slurs as insults is a good example of something I think is harmful, and the social pressure against it that grew over my lifetime is a good example of a social pressure-induced speech restriction that doesn't unacceptably violate free speech. But making "hurts my feelings" the standard for "harm" is too broad, and warrants pushback. Primarily, it's this process of line-finding that I'm defending.
And I agree on the social media mobbing point. It's an important way the current moment is different from the in-other-ways-similar PC panic of the 1990s. It changes the social shunning dynamic, creating a new mechanism that can, at least sometimes, be an illiberal force. Some is just people expressing their opinions, some is an organized effort that's more about power than reasonable harm reduction. Some has elements of both. I'm not quite sure where the line is there.