“That is completely *outwith* (my emphasis) the control of the speaker”.

(What’s with this apparent and unnecessary archaic usage? Looks like Rob has caught it too. You’ll be using Latin phrases next for things that English will do just as well for :-))

I never said it wasn’t. I was simply outlining under what circumstances I could see laughter being my response to criticism. Rob said he would rather a world where criticism doesn’t cause offence, but laughter. And I share GR’s view that while that may sometimes be possible, it is also optimistic, unless we are prepared to try and understand when and why criticism causes offense. What matters is not whether the offense is justifiably taken, but whether it is necessary to give in each instance, and whether it can be understood/predicted sufficiently to be minimised/avoided/repaired.

I would also add though that the things that my self-image is heavily committed to is not always under my control, as a moment’s reflection on cognitive and emotional development will support. Also, while it may be out of the control of the speaker, if the speaker is aware of it, then he must bear some responsibility for how he acts on that awareness.

I don’t think anyone was ruling out criticism, as you seem to imply. I was simply explaining when laughter as a response to criticism is ruled out as a likely option for me. This doesn’t actually need any justification, it is a personal statement of fact, and not entirely unreasonable, in my view.

You claim that “this” discussion is really about the use of violence and not about freedom of speech. I’m not sure exactly which discussion you are referring to, but I was responding to Rob’s plea for people to react to criticism with laughter, not offense, and how realistic this actually is. I didn’t see that there was anything in this post about either F of S or U of V. Maybe I missed it. But assuming that this current discussion between you and I is now about the use of violence, then I would add the following:

I think your final remarks are potentially rather dangerous and, if what you advocate is followed, rather inflammatory. Just because someone is wrong (eg if they threaten violence, and I think we both agree that that is wrong) that is no reason to disregard their feelings. In fact, since those who threaten violence pose a very real danger, some might say that’s a strong argument for seeking to understand their feelings, in order to diffuse the threat. It seems to me that prolonged disregard of people’s feelings that can lead eventually to violent response. In my view, disregarding people’s feelings is just as “wrong” as threatening or committing violence. And two wrongs from the same quarter emphatically do not make a right, especially if perpetrated on the same victim.

“c) my self-image is not heavily committed to being right in that instance.”

That is completely outwith the control of the speaker. It is your responsibility not his. Ruling out criticism of people who are badly wrong and brittle about it (and the more wrong you are, the more likely you are to be brittle about it when this is pointed out, no matter how gently) is clearly nonsense.

Thus:
The right to free speech has to include the freedom to offend if it is to have any meaning at all. Freedom of Speech is all about the freedom to confront dogma or views that cannot withstand rational scrutiny. It is a challenge to EXACTLY these views that will be seen as offensive.

- If the offence is unjustified, it reflects badly on the speaker.
- If the offence is unjustified, but elicits a violent response, it undermines the case that the offence was unjustified.
- If the offence is justified (i.e. the criticism is valid but put tactlessly), and elicits a violent response, the speaker may have been a little silly, but he is not wrong. It is the violent response that is wrong.
- If the offence is in a fact a response to or criticism of the use of violence, and such offence elicits a violent response, the offence is not only justified, it is almost mandatory.

The point being missed widely here is that this discussion is not really about freedom of speech. It is about the use of violence.

Where the initiation of violence is ruled out, there is no need to be offensive. But if it has not, one should not give any quarter to the feelings of one who would respond with force to your words.

I also want to say, although I don’t want Rob to feel criticised (or meta-criticised), that there might be some occasions where he has felt criticised unfairly, or hard-done-by, and he didn’t find it funny. Yet he clearly does have a sense of humour. So although there is some truth in what he says, I think all I can say is “it depends”. That old chestnut.

Criticism to my mind could cause laughter in one of two ways:
1) If it is a) sound and b) gentle enough to enable me to see that it is sound and c) my self-image is not heavily committed to being right in that instance. Otherwise it might cause humiliation, shame and resulting anger, and not feel very funny at all.
2) If it is so unsound as to be ridiculous, and delivered in such a way that doesn’t make me fear for my life or well-being.

I think the relationship between criticism and difference is an interesting one.