comment: >
context: Firstly, if no material harm is done these things aren't illegal in the USA.  You can't paint a swastika over the sickle and hammer if it's someone else's property that has them displayed, but you can paint it if you have the rights to paint anything in that location.  You can certainly make a cookbook for human meat (the cannibal cookbook is available not only in hardcover, but now in paperback.
  You cannot incite immediate violence of course, but on face you seem to be arguing for change to what amounts the unchanged status quo.
  Then...if you extend this to just not responding to things that you don't like that itself is a massive limitation on expression.  The swastika itself is a statement against the status quo - a response to something already being said.  Yet...you'd allow that response but then want us to stop after that?  How does this work?  A pride parade is a response in some ways to bigotry expressed by others.  Should we not have pride parades because hatred was first uttered by the homophobes? >
  
  Of course, I never meant it as someone else or even public property. And yes. I fully agree with a ban on true incitement of violence. 
  I don't want to stop people from responding and making a statement against anything else. But I don't think people should face repercussions beyond statements (which are hardly a reprocussions) for statements of their own. >
  
  So....I should keep working with the nazi even though I don't want to, shouldn't tell my friends but....it's OK to put up a peace sign as a retort? >
  
  
  I don't mean only punishments imposed by the government, but punishments
   society imposes on its members as well. And that change in personal 
  relationships can not be considered punishment.
  
  Is this not a double standard? You are saying that people should be able to to make offensive speech, but that other people should not be able to respond to it. 
  The concept of free speech includes the right of association (i.e. who you hang out with, who you work with, etc). If one person is allowed to hire their Nazi friends, then the same right necessarily applies to the reverse. In other words I have the right to decline to work with or hire nazis. >
  
  I don't think they should not be able to respond to it. But I don't think they should be able to restrict opportunities for such people on an impersonal level and that they can not be discriminated against based on their views on unrelated issues like they can not be discriminated against based on race or gender. >
  
  
  Do your worst and as long as there was no material harm you should be punished neither by the government nor by society.
  
  This sounds great but it depends how we define material harm. Technically, if I wave a knife around in a bar and say I'm going to stab everyone, I'm not causing any material harm. Yet my threats could certainly cause psychological harm, even if I never act on them. If I try to convince someone else to kill themselves, I am not doing anything to directly harm them, but I still contribute to their potential harm. There are a lot of cases where you are technically not harming people but still leads to real bad outcomes. 
  What would you say to these cases? >
  
  If your action has a probability to cause material harm or will lead to harm in the future (like damaging the dam near the village) then it's not a crime against morality, just like blackmail or conspiracy to commit a crime. >
  
  Like 7 of your listed things right at the start of your post are material harm.
  What kind of harm do you mean? Physical injury? >
  
  If it's your copy of the Quran or your flag, then you do only harm your own property, which is normally do not considered to be a material harm. >
  
  Material harm can absolutely mean self inflicted. If you want to move your goalposts and start redefining words then you should make a clear edit to your post, and award a delta accordingly. >
  
  I do not redefine words. I may use the wrong definition at the beginning, but we can agree that damaging your own property (especially small ones, like mass-produced books or flags) is not a crime as it not inflicts harm on others. >
  
  There doesn't need to be harm inflicted on others for something to be a crime, suicide and drug use are both self inflicted. >
  
  And they both fell in the crimes against morality category. >
  
  No they don't. >
  
  Suicide is not a crime in most places >
  
  What do you mean by "punished"?
  All of the things you listed are 100% legal (as I believe they should be).
  But in terms of "societal" punishment -- does anyone really owe you anything? Like, you could walk around with a giant swastika tattooed on your forehead, but it would be really hard to make friends, get a job, or even get people to talk to you. 
  You have complete freedom to have a swastika tattoo, etc. But everyone else has the freedom to ignore you and shoot you dirty looks. >
  
  They absolutely can, and I'd be one of the people who makes sure to noticeably snort walking nearby this person.
  But do you think this person deserves to be ousted from work/denied service at the shop/get his car vandalized? >
  
  Ousted from work - Well, I don't really see how you could be hired with a giant swastika tattoo in the first place. But if it's disrupting the workplace, making customers and other employees uncomfortable, and losing the company business/money, I think it would be justifiable to fire that person.
  Denied service at a shop - Again, if they're disrupting a business and losing the shop money, I think it's justifiable for the shop-owner to ask them to leave, or at least put on a hat.
  Get his car vandalized - No, because I don't think we should all go around committing crimes against people we don't like. 
  But to your bigger point, isn't "snorting at someone on the street" a societal punishment? Sure, it might not be as big as getting fired or denied service, but it's still an act of shunning/disapproval. Where do you draw the line? >
  
  If you serve as a representative of the company in some capacity, then your look is directly related to work, but if you are a night shift janitor, should a swastika serve as a reason for not accepting one to work?
  And yes, actively forcing others to not serve people you don't like is societal punishment — perhaps the shop-owner in this case doesn't do anything wrong, but people who force him to make a such choice do.
  Snorting is not a punishment as it doesn't restrict the opportunities of a person in any way, it's a statement. >
  
  
  If you serve as a representative of the company in some capacity, then your look is directly related to work, but if you are a night shift janitor, should a swastika serve as a reason for not accepting one to work?
  
  Maybe.  Most people, especially people whose job it is to protect the public image of the company they work for/own, don't want to be associated with Nazis.  They've gotten a pretty bad reputation over the course of the last couple decades.  So when Earl the Nazi and Night Janitor at the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant appears in public wearing his Coca-Cola branded janitor uniform and proudly flashing his newly inked swastika neck tattoo - it's probably in the best interest of Coca-Cola to ask that Earl find a new place of employment. >
  
  But the such effect on the public image is impossible without people deciding to punish companies for association with people they don't like (yes, you are talking about Nazis, but it's clearly not only Nazis who can suffer from such a scheme — gays being perhaps the most obvious example).
  And so the question is why do people think, they get to decide what others can do if it's not bringing any material harm to others. >
  
  But nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. I personally don’t like nazis and I’d prefer to spend money on companies and businesses that match my values, so if I see one place where nazis seem comfortable and at home and another where they aren’t I know where im taking my business. But again it’s not like im forcing them to hire nazis or non-Nazis. I just spend my money where I think it’s best spent >
  
  People are allowed to call you an assholr for the things you do. The government shouldn't punish you for being an asshole but that doesn't mean you should face no consequences. >
  
  And why there should be consequences if the subject of my actions does not directly relate to my work/membership in the organization or just in anything that isn't part of your personal relationship with me? >
  
  Because I, and most people, are likely to spend less money on content created by assholes, so people are working with assholes have a vested interest in not working with those assholes anymore. >
  
  So you are the person who chooses to impose repercussions for one's actions that aren't connected with you. 
  Why? Why do you believe that people alike to you should define what the other person does when it's not related to you or causes harm? >
  
  If a music artist I like turns out to express nazi opinions, I will likely no longer enjoy the act of listening to their music. Same for if the nazi is the CEO of a tech company, every time I use their product I would think of that and it would ruin the experience. 
  It's not about punishment, it's about the effect their views have on my experience. If their company or record label or whatever chooses to fire them because their presence makes their products sell worse, that's not my fault. Nor is the company doing anything wrong. >
  
  And what do their views have to do with your experience? 
  Does the product start to work differently? >
  
  I consume products in a context. I, personally, do not buy nestle products whenever I can help it because I see their logo and know that they do terrible things denying water to poor communities. I used to like their hot chocolate, but now buying it makes me feel bad. The physical product did not change, but my knowledge and opinion of it changed. 
  Same if I find out that a company welcomes nazis. Because of this context, my feeling when I see their product changes. It's not punishing them, it's about my enjoyment. >
  
  So just bad association? >
  
  I mean, in america, this is literally protected speech. So it’s not really an unpopular view. >
  
  Sure, but I argue that such protection should be extended beyond repercussions caused by the government + obscenity doesn't seem to be defined in US law, and in many more (even European countries) law is much more restrictive. >
  
  What do you want to be done?
  The law says "You are free to do this without any state repercussions. And anyone who tries to come after you is breaking the law and will be punished accordingly". That is literally all the state can do short of some minority report pre-crime shit. >
  
  I don't want for the state to do anything in this regard, but I want to hear out the opinions of the other side and conclude that I was either wrong or correct. 
  I however believe that such practice is wrong and I'll prove to be correct and will advocate for its alteration. >
  
  Is it correct to say that you generally want less freedom of speech? Given that you’d like people to limit their freedom of expression through avenues like social judgement? >
  
  All of the things you listed are legal in most western countries. 
  It’s just that there is no guarantee how people will react. Some might come after you. Not legal, of course, but… >
  
  And people who come for me believe that I should be punished for my action, which is exactly he point that I argue against. >
  
  The first amendment only applies to the government. The government can’t censor you, private businesses and individuals can censor you, same as you can censor them. >
  
  And I argue against the very idea of censuring. (which is not to say I want it to be prohibited by law, I want it to be considered inappropriate behavior). >
  
  But what if your behaviour is more inappropriate than the inappropriate behavior of censoring? >
  
  
  should be punished neither by the government nor by society.
  1) I don't mean only punishments imposed by the government, but punishments society imposes on its members as well. And that change in personal relationships can not be considered punishment.
  
  what else would not be considered "punishment" "by society".
  What I mean, basically all of the things you mentioned are legal at least in the united state.  They are pretty much protected by the first amendment.
  but for example, if I am a senior manager at Netflix and you write for a show on Netflix or your an actor on a show or whatever.  And you see where i am going... cancel culture.
  The same freedoms that protects your right to do these things also protect my right to "punish" you by not watching your TV show or unfollowing your twitter or kicking you off my privately owned social media platform, etc. etc.
  besides government punishment, what would be an example for punishment by society that you would find unacceptable.  You said a change in a personal relationship is not considered punishment, but what about a change in a business relationship?  In a partnership? or a customer/vendor relationship?
  I can't really think of any form of society punishment which shouldn't be allowed. >
  
  Do your worst and as long as there was no material harm you should be punished neither by the government nor by society.
  In the US you won't be punished for any of that by the gov't. People judging you is a whole different matter. >
  
  Except world spans beyond the US, and people judging are also the subject of the question. >
  
  You really can’t legislate ‘being judged’ without violating the first amendment. That would be a major violation of freedom of expression. >
  
  There is no such thing as crimes against morality. >
  
  Sodomy was illegal in the US as recently as 20 years ago. Should that have been punishable because it was illegal? >
  
  If by "crime against morality", you simply mean an immoral action, then your viewpoint would require massive parts of human nature to change. Morality is simply the word used to describe the system that determines how people should interact with one another. It is partly derived from social instincts (such as empathy, cooperation, and hierarchy) held over from our evolution as a social species, and partly derived from societal pressures. It is what allows civilization to flourish, as it ensures that people are less likely to harm or steal from their fellow members of society. Stealing from your neighbor is a crime against morality. Killing your neighbor is a crime against morality. Burning down the library is a crime against morality.
  So, "crimes against morality" is not the phrase you should have used for your CMV. It seems like you meant to say something like "offensive expressions".
  ​
  
  I don't mean only punishments imposed by the government, but punishments society imposes on its members as well. And that change in personal relationships can not be considered punishment.
  
  Society is a web of personal relationships. Any punishment that society imposes is, by definition, a change in personal relationships. >
  
  What about indirect harm? Someone who expresses nazi opinions makes it more likely that others will be nazis. That is bad for all of society. I'm not saying we should make nazi speech illegal, but social consequences seem appropriate. >
  
  You point out that such crimes have no victims, yet in most contexts there would be victims in the digital era. What you're going for here is sort of an extrapolation of "if a tree falls in the forest..." 
  But let's say you and some friends dress up as a KKK member and walk down the streets of your city, and people post pictures of you doing it. A black person who lives in that same city and perhaps frequents that area might see those images and immediately feel unsafe. Your intention might not have been to convey harm, and based on your conditions, no one who could've been offended was there in the present when it happened, but now that person has observed that people within their community are very comfortable expressing themselves in a racist and harmful way. It seems you view these types of acts as "victimless", but likely it would inflict psychological harm on anyone who is of that group, and in some cases perpetuate the idea that they might be at risk of physical harm. >
  
  
  Such crimes have no victims,
  
  They objectively do. I mean, you're aware that psychological damage is a thing, right? What you're saying is like when a four year old waves his hands in front of his siblings face and says, "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"
  
  they do not inescapably (as you can ignore them) make your life worse
  
  You can't just ignore things. People have evolved to notice things around them. So when there is a really insulting display, you don't really have a choice to not notice it. Think about it: when you turn the corner and see a sign, what is your first instinct? To read it.
  
  I don't mean only punishments imposed by the government, but punishments society imposes on its members as well.
  
  Are you friends with people who treat you like shit? No? Why don't you practice what you preach?
  
  I get that majority of western countries already support this line of view
  
  No, they dont. There's not a single culture that says, "If you're an asshile or an angel, you'll be treated the same way." Literally everywhere there is society, actions have consequences. >
  
  So this bit is going to be easy to dispute with. It's almost indisputably true but whether it's a valid reason to act is debatable at best, and requires case-by-case adjudication.
  There are two types of "freedom," at least for my purposes here. You've got freedom from restrictions and freedom to act. Freedom from restrictions is simple. It's "no one says you can't." Freedom to act is the ability to actually do it. No one is physically stopping you from moving across your country, but if you don't have money to pay for the trip and for a place to live at your destination, your "freedom" is only half formed. You're allowed to do it, but you're still prevented.
  Society and government exists in an effort to make the second possible. Cooperation makes things you could never manage as an individual into something easily attainable. But to make cooperation possible, you have to give up some of the individual freedoms (from restriction) in order to create a stable social order. It's social order. And order means some degree of restriction on your personal autonomy. At its most basic, you gain the right to property and personal security by accepting restrictions on your ability to cause harm to people or things.
  But social order is more than just personal security. Cooperation requires trust. It requires a shared identity of some sort. Culture.
  "Crimes against morality" are actions that disrupt that. They sow division and distrust where unity is the goal. And so it's reasonable to say that certain extreme forms of it can be banned. Where that line should be is the issue. So let's look at three examples:
  
  Sexual harassment. Just verbal stuff. It doesn't cause any direct injury or damage property. All it does is cause someone to feel unsafe, even though the person doing the harassment never takes it beyond that. But that perception of a threat invites a response and creates conflict we want to avoid. Almost everyone will agree that it's reasonable to penalize it. It certainly wouldn't do to penalize the harassed person for responding.
  Germany bans the display of Nazi iconography (and the salute, and a few other related things). "Free speech," you might say, but Nazism involved a genocide. It is an ideology inherently tied to action, and it invites conflict with the groups it threatens. Again, you're left with a choice of banning the behavior that instigates conflict or penalizing people who respond to that provocation. 
  Some Muslim countries penalize blasphemy, and define blasphemy rather broadly. Speaking out against the religion, even in measured terms, can result in severe penalties. The "offense" to believers is seen as a provocation; those words have slandered their god. And to maintain their social order, they penalize the speaker rather than the offended parties.
  
  Almost everyone here is going to disagree with 3. A few people might disagree with 2. And pretty much no one is going to take issue with 1. But they're all variations of speech crimes that deviate from accepted social norms. We've decided that people should not be required to tolerate unwanted sexual advances. They've decided that people should not be required to tolerate Nazi propaganda. They've decided that people should not be required to tolerate disparagement of their religion.
  It's a line drawing exercise, and where you draw the line depends on what aspects of your society's culture you see as essential to maintaining social order. And then you have to ask whether the restriction you accept (less freedom!) pairs with a sufficient increase in the ability to act (more freedom!).
  And of course, there's going to be a conflict between the benefit to the whole and the benefit to any given individual. Is it moral to maintain a social order that harms a few of its members if tolerating that gets a net benefit for everyone else? How severe is the harm? How many are affected? How great is the benefit? How many receive it? Do you tolerate pollution that may cause asthma in the nearby populace if it lets you manufacture farm equipment that allows you to feed them and everyone else easily?
  It's a balancing act, and while you can argue over where to draw the line, you can't really argue that a line exists. >
  
  A society in which everyone is openly hostile, even if not physically injuring each other, is dysfunctional and can't even be called a society.
  It's like traffic laws. (Barring crashes) Nobody is being hurt simply by the action of everyone driving erratically and any which way, but doing so is an impediment to the purpose of traffic, which is to functionally transport from one location to another.
  That's what a society is supposed to be: people acting together to achieve their mutual goals. That cannot happen if everyone is constantly harassing and impeding each other.