A large poster appeared on the Nike flagship store on Newbury Street in Boston before the marathon:
“Runners Welcome. Walkers Tolerated.”
The slogan was clearly intended to motivate marathoners, but many perceived the word “tolerated” as condescending and demeaning. Critics felt the company:
prioritized professional athletes;
devalued those who use the “run-walk” method (a popular technique among beginners, older people, those recovering from injuries, and adaptive athletes);
generally demonstrated elitism instead of inclusivity.
You can explore further developments for yourself; that’s beyond the scope of this article. I also wouldn’t like to discuss whether this was a PR stunt or not (a subtle provocation that sparked heated debate to attract attention).
I’m interested in the following questions:
What defines insult: the speaker’s intent, the audience’s perception, or some objective standard?
Should the law require proof of actual harm, or is the mere allegation of “insult” sufficient for a case? What if the complainant abuses their rights for their own ends (to attract attention, to convert it into profit)?
Should defense against insult be a matter of law, or should it remain outside the realm of formal legal codification? Therefore, which defense mechanism is preferable in this case—public condemnation or litigation? Doesn’t “public condemnation” create a less favorable environment for the defendant (who is simply forced to accept it, and defending themselves will only provoke even greater public anger)?
Do you think it’s possible in principle to create an “objective standard” of insult that would be independent of the current cultural agenda (which is rapidly changing today)?
If the law protects feelings, doesn’t the law become an instrument of the “dictatorship of the most sensitive”?
ADDITION. If we turn to the individual level, the situation becomes interesting: for example, I myself am a “pedestrian” (due to health reasons), but subjectively I don’t perceive the sign as devaluing.
The question arises: how can the state establish the fact of “devaluation”? Especially if it is given the power to resolve such disputes.
If we are talking about protecting the feelings of a group, then:
– Should this group be unanimous?
– Is it even possible to speak of “devaluation” as a property of an action, rather than a reaction?
If we rely on public opinion, however, another problem arises—a methodological one: to what extent is it permissible to make legal consequences (liability) dependent on methods for measuring public sentiment?
Some people would just short of literally explode and fall into a deep, irreversable psychosis if they didn’t have something, anything—no matter how benign, ridiculous, and clearly a result of apohphenia—to express frustration and rage at. This is the hallmark of a poorly-adjusted adult child. Who, unfortunately, reproduce the most thus dragging down all of humanity, civilization, and the entire world.
It is a manifestation of cognitive bias. We don’t like to admit we made poor choices, so we double down in delusion assuming something or someone else must be to blame. And the mind, enslaved to the hedonic treadmill simply responds: “Yeah, that’s right.”
It’s a marathon. If I’m not mistaken to even participate you have to sign a legally-binding contract that states you are healthy enough for prolonged ambulatory (fancy for walking) activity. So that means, for most people, if you’re not walking, you’re being lazy. Obviously you make incredibly reasonable exceptions, those who are elderly, coming out of surgery, etc. So perhaps the waiver was basically a “if you die or get hurt, that’s your problem, nothing to do with us” kind of thing, so common these days.
In short, this particular example seems like a lot of irrelevant hoopla, so I’ll instead focus on your direct inquiries.
Most crimes are judged in modern Western society by the intent. What was going through the mind of the person who fired a gun that struck a person, or who drove a vehicle that did the same, etc. You can’t just sue a convenient store chain under the claim “that guy threatened my life” because a clerk said “be safe” as you left just because it happened to make you feel unsafe. That just illustrates to society you are mentally unwell.
What are we talking about here? In places where free speech is legal, insulting someone is not a crime. Unless it’s considered a hate crime or something that reasonably makes someone in fear for their life. It’s kind of a majority-minority thing, often. In some fictitious society where someone “being mean” is against the law, then obviously that’s against the law. There’s a reason those societies don’t really exist today. Because then you just anybody saying anything and it turns into a linguistic wild west.
Again, we seem to be imagining an, again society that does not exist where it’s against the law to express an opinion that would insult someone. There’s not a single place on Earth, to my knowledge, where such a law exists. It’s a bit like discussing how to care for a unicorn, for example. Not a great use of one’s time, wouldn’t you say?
I agree with you that the example I gave is absurd. But it has another advantage: it’s neutral. If I had tried to write a more realistic example of someone being accused of “insulting feelings,” it could easily have turned out that I was the one offending someone else. But in writing, I relied on the readers’ ability to abstract.
Next. By imagining a society that doesn’t exist, we risk being mistaken. When I read the news, what I read often makes me wonder, “Is all this really happening?” “Is this nonsense they’re reporting really real?” But no: here and there, someone’s feelings are constantly being offended, someone demands protection, someone is perplexed by what’s happening.
Here’s something else that should be mentioned: philosophizing about law is somewhat different in method from philosophizing about life. Imagine that someone’s fate depends on your decision, and you are under daily pressure from various groups demanding protection. In an instant, this can escalate into a social explosion, or it can’t. For this reason, any nonsense that pops into someone’s head or is uttered by some popular but clueless person forces a reaction. If not, you could be eaten. Therefore, we have to pay attention to what seems meaningless.
There’s another example. In a distant, traditional country, some women entered a place of worship and shook their naked bodies there. This incident was quite resonant, but they were all jailed (at the time for hooliganism), and the state subsequently passed a law providing for liability for “insulting the feelings of believers.” And these are real-life cases.
Therefore, reflecting on the questions I’ve posed, I propose shifting our perspective from that of a reflective skeptic to that of someone whose decisions determine the fate of others, and attempting to answer in this context.
The US has probably the most extensive free speech protections of almost any country. There are exceptions: Fighting words, incitement to riot or violence, threats against the president or other high officials, malicious slander.
Even in the US schools, workplaces, universities and other private environments can ban or punish speech which creates a hostile workplace or harassment (sexual, religious, ethnic, etc.)
Many countries, even liberal European democracies, ban “hate speech”, “holocaust denial” and other forms of speech disruptive to civil society.
Highly religious societies may ban blasphemy.
We don’t ban “insults” (which would lack any clear legal or social definition), micro-aggressions, cultural appropriation or other minor and poorly defined transgressions.
So speech can be and often is regulated depending on the context, situation, country and other factors. Should speech be “regulated”? Did the US founders have “political speech” in mind or all forms of speech (think sedition, treason, burning flags, draft cards, etc.) We all have heard speech that we thought perhaps should be banned but deciding what speech is allowed and what speech is to be banned is a nearly impossible legal task. We are engaged in a struggle about the free speech rights of students at universities versus speech creating a hostile environment for other student groups. Our current government is busy at work trying to regulate certain forms of speech but odds are when all the cases play out in court many of these governmental intrusions will not be upheld and all really just a form of intimidation and harassment themselves.
This strikes me as basic 1st Amendment analysis as to what speech is free and where restrictions may lie, the tension typically surrounding hate speech. Telling walkers they are slow doesn’t create the sorts of debates that a KKK sign might, so that’s where those issues typically come up.
As to your example, it’s common in road races to set time limits, where they’ll pick you up if you’ve not completed the race in time. That’s less a free speech issue than just a basic contract issue. The race was run under specific terms and you can agree to those terms or not.
What typically restrains organization from setting rules too strictly or from being dicks is that just like someone might choose not to run the race, they might choose not to buy their products. But sometimes being a dick makes you more popular because people like that sort of attitide. Trump for example.
Well, here’s the thing. Speaking a factual truth is often insulting.
A few examples (imagine them being in context to who they’re spoken toward, in increasing offensive and generally taboo in nature):
You’re going to die. (true for every human being, someday, no?)
You are fat; medically overweight.
You’re short.
You’re ugly. (an opinion and ultimately subjective statement)
I could kill you with one punch.
Your mother died and now you’re alone.
You have AIDS and you’re going to die sooner than normal.
And so on and so forth. In a situation where these particular statements happen to be true, one might end up in a place where giving advice that could save a life, is forbidden. Naturally, most people with sense and basic decency would approach these topics in a much different tone and wording, but sometimes, people don’t listen to anything but what overrides their ingrained and often trauma-induced mental “wall” per se and shocks them. It’s really complicated. Entire libraries could be filled with the ins and outs of such psychology and the like.
To the point. One ought not end up in a society where one is forbidden from stating the emperor has no clothes. This helps no one in said society, save for those who do not belong in it. You can’t legislate morality, because the layperson, the common man, tends to be unreasonable, unfit to be considered legal adults, by and large. But work must be done. So, provided they work and don’t kill each other, a necessary compromise is reached by allowing free speech and only punishing documented, evidenced crimes beyond a shadow of a doubt. It’s not perfect, I agree. But it’s what it is for the time being.
Is there anywhere in the United States where it is against the law for someone to insult someone else? If not, why would this be an issue here? Why would the law get involved?
For what it’s worth, when I first read it, I interpreted the offending sentence to mean that all participants in the race were welcome but that non-participants could come in too. That seems amusing and inoffensive.
I haven’t read the further three comments, but this is clearly wrong. The Harmful Digital Communications Act and its parallels clearly make an offence of … being offensive. As noted earlier, “intent” is usually hte go-to. In the UK, that seems to be hte only distinguishing factor. Otherwise, the term “distress or anxiety” is enough. And we’ve seen how utterly preposterous this is with the number of detainments over it. Generally, intent is not found - but in some cases that it was found, people are getting higher/longer sentences than those physically abusing children.
It seems to me criminalizing either ‘causing a feeling’ or ‘thought’ is untenable in both a free society, and one which overall avoids labelling thought and opinion as somehow ‘wrong’. Obviously, there can be exceptions, but as an example I don’t think Holocaust denial should be illegal anywhere. That’s so dumb to me.
A good example is the “she has great jeans” campaign. Some lost their absolute minds over it. And I can see their preferred interpretation - but that exists in their minds. The law shouldn’t have anything whatsoever to do with this.
@T_Clark I agree. 1A makes it almost impossible for provisions like those above to obtain in the US.
The law usually treats insults as an objective question rather than actual proof. In many cases, courts apply a reasonable person style to see if there’s real harm involved rather than mere offense. After all, the justice system is aimed at ensuring fair justice, not your sob story.
Regarding the first question, I would say it is a mix of all the factors stated but primarily the audience’s perspective. I could call someone skinny, which some would consider a compliment, while others will find it insulting if they’re trying to gain weight. Insults are defined by the person they are directed at; it can be a compliment with pure intentions but an insult from a different viewpoint.
I personally don’t think an allegation of an “insult” would suffice for a case. I would like to ask what the case would even be about. Public humiliation? a form of harassment? Hate speech or defamation? Was there any actual harm involved, like a change in social standing, or was it just hurt feelings? Some laws punish the offense itself and not the damage caused, which could be applicable here, but for big brands who are doing this as a publicity stunt and not as a targeted insult, I think it will be easy to get away with.
If a complainant is using the claim just to receive attention or profit, it’s a real concern, which is why most legal systems demand proof of harm or proper purpose of the so-called crime. The point of these conditions is to prevent the legal process from becoming a tool for nuisance, retalience, or gain for personal use. So in principle, the stronger the evidence requirement, the less room there is for biased/emotional claims.
A fully culture-free objective standard of insult is probably impossible in principle. Any standard still has to decide which social context counts, whose perspective is “reasonable,” and how much emphasis to place on history, power, and audience norms, all of which change over time. Even using a reasonable person method, what they consider reasonable would be influenced by the society of the time, which wouldn’t be independent.
One can sue for defamation (libel and slander). Reputation has a legal standing. Insult, on the other hand, is a very broad terminology that casts a wide net.
So, you’re not too far off. If the insult falls into one of the defamation examples, then yes, a legal recourse is possible. Imagine a business establishment whose reputation suffered due to an insulting article.
Insults are malicious whether the speaker or writer is “just joking”. I think people often confuse insults with bantering: bantering is a friendly, two-way expressions of criticisms among closely-held associations of individuals. The best way to not step out of bounds and hurl insults is to be mindful that not every person or audience is an intimate relation to oneself.
I’ll try to highlight the key aspects that emerged during this discussion.
Regarding the example I gave as a starting point, I chose it because it is:
a) Absurd (the situation itself);
b) Neutral
If we abstract (which many have done), the question isn’t so far-fetched: for example, in some societies, jokes centered on racial or religious characteristics (especially in multicultural societies) can potentially be perceived as offensive, and therefore, the citizen himself (especially the well-mannered one) tries to avoid this, despite the prohibitions imposed by the state in the form of legislative restrictions.
The key aspect here is the difference between states, cultures, and histories. Here I would like to address the well-known viewpoint known as the “standard social science model” (SSSM) or, more broadly, the “blank slate” (tabula rasa) theory—that human nature is not a rigidly programmed mechanism, but a universal, flexible capacity for learning. The brain and psyche are understood by adherents as a kind of “blank slate” on which culture writes its text.
Thus, the problem I’ve highlighted is multicultural and universal. In any country in the world, there are taboo topics for discussion, no matter what freedom of speech guarantees.
But modernity poses new questions. I’ll try to explain them in detail. Firstly, there are almost no “pure,” “exclusive” societies left on our planet: wherever we find ourselves today, we will inevitably encounter a diversity of “values”—something that will be offensive to one person is perfectly acceptable to another. In modern large cities, society is collapsing into echo chambers: you might live next door to a Muslim, a Hindu, a German, or a Belarusian, but you might all be citizens of the same country. Everyone will have completely different views on what is offensive and what is not. And when something happens that offends them, they have the right to appeal to their government to stop it. The government, although formally prohibited, nonetheless intervenes in discourse and regulates relations, trying to prevent conflicts and maintain goodwill. There are various tools for this. Let’s be honest.
Insult is undoubtedly criminalized on issues that are indisputably agreed upon, based on universal human rights or well-known historical events. A good example is “Holocaust denial,” which is frowned upon worldwide. “Insult” itself is criminalized in many countries. “Slander” is also criminalized almost everywhere. The difference between insult and defamation in jurisprudence is that, in terms of focus, insult ascribes value, whereas defamation ascribes or imputes fact.
In a way, simply philosophizing about life is quite comfortable: you’ve spoken, presented your arguments, and listened to them. As a result, a dialogue has emerged, and in this dialogue, you can agree with your opponent or not. In any case, everyone will go home and continue living. When it comes to the “philosophy of law,” however, another aspect is added to the dialogue: “What should we do?” Punish or watch two mobs tear each other apart?
In the US, in any country, this topic periodically comes up. Feelings are hurt, feelings are hurt… But for now, humanity has enough political tools to regulate these issues, and it seems that the question of legal regulation is premature. However, it’s only a matter of time. Eventually, people will want to understand the limits, not simply “rely on intuition.” Businesses are already in this process, so they hire teams of lawyers who evaluate advertising and other communications from the perspective of legal risks for the company. But lawyers are powerless in the face of “public outrage.” Sociologists are similarly powerless in this regard (because they are limited by their methods). Hence the question for philosophy. Perhaps it can formulate a risk assessment tool?
In this sense, the fundamental question remains open:
if “offense” inevitably depends on perception, but the law is still forced to deal with it, is it even possible to formulate a consistent criterion, or will any decision be inherently arbitrary?
For discussion? I don’t think so. For public claims, yes. Could you maybe pinpoint what you mean here?
This isn’t quite true. The difference is integrity. Slander and defamation stem from, essentially, dishonesty. That’s why “genuinely held belief” is usually a defense.
Well, until one touches another, nothing. Verbal spats are inevitable, needed and likely the lack of htem is why the world has become so socially violent.
This is true, and I’ll always go back to Mill on the problem of social opinion.
I believe the lack of conversation has lead to this situation - people don’t want to talk anymore, because its more comfortable. Very much a “first world” issue.
It will be, in a policy sense. It wont be in terms of ascertaining that the person has been offended. They’re, as you say, within their rights to appeal to an authority, but if the authority cannot make a fair decision (it cant, for largely the reasons you canvas) then it needs to set the complaint aside.
I think I’ve grasped your point, and I’d like to elaborate on mine. It’s truly important for philosophy to grasp the content of a concept—and this is certainly valuable. Philosophers write volumes on how to understand concepts, and even more so on how to approach them in general. And frankly, this resonates deeply with me.
But there’s another side—how these concepts work in real life.
Let’s imagine a simple situation: someone said something, and it offended you—it doesn’t matter how exactly: whether it offended you, outraged you, or caused a persistent internal tension. The modern answer to this, at least formally, is: not a duel, but a trial.
So you go to court and say, “I was slandered because the person was dishonest.” And here a subtle point arises. The judge won’t understand what “honesty” means in the philosophical sense. Not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s not operational.
He’ll ask differently:
What exactly was said?
Is it true?
Can it be verified?
What harm was caused?
And at this point, it becomes clear that “honesty” as a criterion is too broad and slippery to rely on in a decision.
This is precisely why law, it seems to me, has historically taken a different path—not through the subject’s intrinsic qualities, but through more rigorous, verifiable elements. What I mentioned about defamation is precisely the result of this long process of fine-tuning: not ideal, but a working consensus.
And this leads me to the same question I’m trying to formulate regarding “insult.” If we can’t rely on something like “honesty,” then what can we rely on here?
Can we even call this something as rigorous, or are we inevitably stuck in the realm of judgments that must be recontextualized each time?
It’s quite difficult for legislators to force people to talk if they don’t want to. I don’t know where the world is heading, but I’m not alone in noticing the trend toward minimizing emotions and maximizing operational efficiency. Every day, we’re increasingly algorithmizing everything. People who go to court don’t want to reason. They want to protect what they believe to be a violated right.
Furthermore, I’ve noticed that even ChatGPT has been issuing extremely normative answers lately: right/correct, should/shouldn’t. It’s painful to read; it makes my eyes water.
A colleague comes up to me and asks a question about the mechanics of something, and he expects the same answer. There’s no time to reason. Even friendly conversations are increasingly about practical matters. But I digress. That’s a separate topic.
I get your point. It’s non-formalizable, so it has no place in the law, so let’s leave it as is. That’s a clear position. Consistent. From this, the average person might conclude: Philosophy is useless when it comes to practical needs. Too bad.
Philosophy as the living frontier of human experience has been murdered 2,000 years ago by some desert tribal, supernatural, totalitarian, insane imagination called “monotheism”.
Freedom of speech, freedom of reasoning, and freedom of deciding have been replaced by submission to morals—basically to the absolute rule: “the real lasts are the moral untouchable firsts”. This totalitarianism is so strong I can’t even write here who the firsts are.
As this oriental moral totalitarianism has zero civilizational achievement, we have lived in the ruins of the only civilization that ever existed: the Greco-Roman one. It took 2,000 years to erase the ruins, but here we are: now the moral enslavement reaches the level of legal punishment for “feeling” insult.
If the ancient Greeks saw what we became, they would vomit everything we are, deny any genealogical link to us, and send us back to our human desert.
In this sense, the law could help. There are people roaming the streets who feel their feelings have been offended. The law could say, “Insulting feelings is not punishable.” But to do that, we first need to define the concept of “insulting feelings.”
This might sound logical, but it is completely insane that a government feels the need to legislate on insulted “feelings”. It is the umpteenth proof of the disappearance of the human being—proof that we are indeed the Nietzschean Last Men , whose feelings must now be managed by the State because they have lost their last basic human abilities. Imagine Diogenes the Cynic living under this kind of legislation!
Furthermore, the law is coercive by nature. As soon as it legally defines “insulting feelings,” the insulter will end up in prison, exactly like anyone manifesting a [rest of the original post censored on demand of “the community”… of last men. Q.E.D.]
Allow me to digress a bit from the topic and philosophy. I’d like to be an ordinary person now and make a few value judgments.
I love the spirit of protest, doubt, and criticism you infuse into each of your texts. One can drown in the variety of attempts to understand your message, but few would argue that there is a “spirit” and a “will” in all of this. This always captivates me.
This often becomes fertile ground for radicalization, for the affirmation of dichotomies, for maximalism! But isn’t this why each of us loves youth (not necessarily the physical, but the youth of aspiration)?
I’ve grasped something important from your premises. In my opinion, you’re saying: “Keep your dirty hands off the sacred, the unknown, the indefinable, because as soon as you formalize it, there’s no room left for me to live.”
Well, I like that. It’s like music. In that regard, I welcome your playing of this music!
So, how much have I been wrong about? (If you say I was wrong about everything, I’ll feel happy.)
This is an important question today, since there is so much conversation surrounding “hate speech” and “hate crimes”, and the limits that should be placed on a government’s police power and abilities to regulate and silence speech versus the limits of what we all would rather nobody ever be allowed to say in the public square.
I like the stoics on this one. There is no such thing as an objective insult. We have to take offense by our own attention and our own willingness and by the limits of our own self-control.
Someone calls me stupid, and I don’t feel anything, because I know I’m smart. I don’t have to care emotionally, because anyone who thinks I’m stupid must be fairly stupid, at least as far as I can tell from what I see as stupidity in the world. This isn’t stoicism, it’s confidence, but it demonstrates that what might seem like an objective insult “you are stupid” may in fact not cause insult at all.
Someone calls me weak, and I might feel threatened and defensive, but only because I must doubt my own strength, or because I thought I was really strong and now my confidence is shaken because, how could they doubt my strength? I take offense because of what I make of the meaning and interpretation of those words and how they reflect reality, and how reality as I knew it is now called into question. I feel offended because of my own sense of me in the world, versus them in the same world, regardless of whether they intended to offend me or not. Again, this is not stoic, because I’m letting outside forces define my innermost sense of me.
But insults are, by definition, a subjective construction. Insults do not come into being unless I take offense, and feel insulted. It is possible to have the self-discipline and disposition to truly not feel insulted by things others say.
And our laws cannot regulate what people might allow themselves to take offense from and what others might allow themselves to blow off. Our laws cannot define “hate speech” and cannot enforce any such stipulated definitions fairly or equally, precisely because, some may not feel hated by the same words others might start crying in fear about.
Further, I don’t see why we would want to regulate “hate speech”. The antidote to ignorant or even dangerous thoughts and ideas spoken in public, are wise and prudent thoughts and ideas spoken in refutation. There is no other way. Putting people in jail for speaking out against the government postpones everything (maybe long enough for some to die in prison, but not for one second changing nature itself). Putting people in jail for insulting other people foments violence and reaction in itself. I can’t even give a good example of “hate speech” without risking banning from the sight. I’m fine with a private website wanting to manage and regulate decorum, but I’m not fine with my government telling all people where they can say whatever they want and where they can’t, and worse, what they can say and what they can’t unless they want to be convicted of a crime.
Yes. This is how it is in our best interest to regulate speech that comprises the planning stage of criminal acts (inciting violence, conspiracy to commit crime). There must be a clear link to immanent harm, or in the case of breaking up organized crime, if you can link a mob boss saying “kill that man” to a separate underling actually committing murder, you should be able to prosecute the boss for his “speech”.
And fraud should be regulated. If I lie to induce action or cost, and that action or cost produces measurable, quantifiable harm, then government should be able to regulate that “speech” as well.
It gets tricky at a political rally or protest, where speakers are yelling “we have to stop them, at all costs, because they are liars and they want to overthrow democracy and put all X people in jail” and stuff like that. The default should be that this speech is allowed. If it incites actual action that is criminal, the speaker might want to start worrying, but the default has to be innocent until actual harm with a direct causal link to the speech can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt in court, and we should all be extremely wary of courts that chip away and chill the default necessity of free speech.
I think I gave you my opinion above. For insult, or it’s modern manifestation “hate speech”, government should have no recourse. People can sue people in civil court for whatever they want, but damages from insults should be significantly hard to prove and clearly quantifiable. You don’t get to win an award for a million dollars because some bully made you cry a lot. You should have to prove things like the bullying clearly destroyed opportunities for employment or equal access, and these lost opportunities have a clear, quantifiable monetary implication (no punitive damages for being a meanie). And when proving libel or slander, falsity and damages need to be proven to win anything as well.
No. I do think we can debate and reasonably conclude that some words would reasonably lead to insult in most cases, but in the end, so what? Being insulted is part of the spice of life. Putting an insulter in their place with a better insult, or dare I say, an objective truth about the weakness of the insulter’s position, is way better than any other means of managing insults.
Yes. If the law begins to regulates speech (which is the case in many countries today), we slowly become incapable of governing ourselves, or debating who to elect or what policies to implement or throw out. People begin to get jailed because they simply express disagreement with the mob. There is a reason freedom of speech is the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is the most basic natural right that constitutions must almost absolutely protect, or else the notion of government by the people, is lost.
