Do you think a boss can react by firing an employee for fantasizing about killing them or having sex with them and then sharing it with co-workers? If so, isn't that fairly punitive? Would it be OK for them to get a restraining order? How about filing harassment charges in court?
There's a whole field of law about this, which mostly boils down to "Can these words do real harm to someone's ability to work there." Words, themselves, can definitely do harm and when that's the case then that's pretty well where freedom of speech is curtailed. But, of course, you can't just pick a
topic and say "Discussing this, no matter the context, will always cause harm." If I were to discuss (oh, heck, to pick an example) violent fantasies that I've had, in a fairly anonymous setting like this, without mentioning any information that could cause anyone to be afraid in the real world, there's zero chance of my words doing harm to anyone. Yes?
I'm looking for some detail on what you consider a legitimate response vs. an illegitimate response.
John, I think you're using the term "legitimate" here in a way that tends to conflate two concepts:
- Legitimate response: I do X, you respond in way Y ... Y is a legitimate response if it's not, like, crazy or unethical. I can say "Let's go for ice cream" and you can respond "Oh, so you think I'm fat, is that it?" and that's a legitimate response (though barely). Responding by punching me in the face is not.
- Legitimate opinion: I do X, you form opinion Y about me ... Y is a legitimate opinion if it is a reasonable thing to think. Note that whether something is a legitimate opinion is, of course, subjective. You may think your opinion is legitimate, while I think it's hogwash.
So: Examples (since you've asked for details)
- #1: Employee discusses violent fantasies, even when people say "Gross, stop it!" Boss decides he's a bad egg, and starts giving him crap assignments. Clearly a legitimate response (assignments being within his purview), also clearly a legitimate opinion (at the least, the employee is disrupting the workplace).
- #2: Employee discusses violent fantasies while drunk at the office christmas party ("Break his head open like a ... hic! ... cantaloupe! That's what I oughta do! Heh ... I gotta go pee"). Boss decides that she's a psychopath, installs an elaborate security system at his house and buys several guns for home defense. Clearly a legitimate response (he can protect himself however he wants) almost certainly not a legitimate opinion (she was plastered, in the best tradition of the season ... doesn't mean she's gonna puree his pet bunny).
- #3: Employee discusses his political convictions. Boss decides that the guy's not in the same political party as him, and fires him. Clearly not a legitimate response. Clearly a legitimate opinion.
- #4: Employee, when asked, reluctantly discloses violent incidents from his past as a veteran. Boss decides that the guy's going to go postal and fires him. Neither a legitimate response nor a legitimate opinion.
You get how the word "legitimate" can be confusing here? I don't think
anyone has proposed that
saying "Wow, that's morally reprehensible!" is not a legitimate response. You can say and think what you want, so long as saying it doesn't harm anyone. It's just that many people are going to take issue with whether you have a legitimate
opinion. Make sense?
Well, that's the edge I want to explore -- why people react to certain ideas as moral wrongs and whether that's legitimate or not.
Well, you need some better words then. Your arguments about "Reacting negatively to these things is a survival mechanism" are good for showing how it's a legitimate
response, but very poor for showing that it's a legitimate
opinion. Reacting negatively to people of different skin colors is an evolutionarily reinforced survival mechanism, but that doesn't mean that racists have a legitimate opinion, right?
I think there are legitimate reasons why large numbers of people react to certain ideas and fantasies as moral wrongs and I think there are legitimate reasons for that reaction.
The ideas
themselves, absent any particular context of them being harmfully disclosed? Legitimate response, not a legitimate opinion.
And the question of what happens when a human being lacks that visceral moral response is not merely academic.
"If you don't find this disgusting then you might well be
dangerous, and something should be done about you."
I find that
line of reasoning disgusting. The fact that you don't worries me. There is a pretty big part of me that, based on your inability to see how appalling what you're saying is, wants to write you off as a bad person.
But I recognize that as a legitimate response which is not a legitimate opinion. I don't feel ashamed of thinking it, but I also know that it's
not reality, it's just my visceral reaction. I balance it with my deep commitment to letting people speak their minds especially when I disagree with them. I rationally analyze: Is John actually going to cause harm to anyone by discussing this on a forum? Clearly
not. And, despite my visceral reaction, I whole-heartedly support you in expressing your opinions, while simultaneously explaining how I disagree.
You see how that works?
And once we get past simplistic statements of principle to the more pragmatic issue of how we separate the dead baby jokes from sexual harassment, then I think we can have a discussion about what the real principles at work are.
"Is harm done?" For my money, that's the principle. Sexual harassment is controlled when it provably harms someone's ability to do their work and earn a living. That's real harm, done by words.
It is virtually
impossible for one person to harm another by posting something on an RPG forum on the internet. I mean ... really. It's been tried, in just about every conceivable variation.
Given that, I don't think there's much that should be controlled here. You?
And for all the talk about free speech absolutism on the Internet, there are plenty of limits on it in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere that few people seem very interested in.
I suspect that people are more absolutist about free speech on the Internet because there is so much smaller risk of words on the internet doing harm than words face-to-face. Context is king.