Pretty sure it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

You are correct, it is all about context. If there was a fire then there would be no issue but if you are shouting "fire" falsely with the intention to cause panic then you are on grounds for disorderly conduct.

Free speech fundamentally concerns the sharing of ideas.

Platitudes about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre deliberately pretend otherwise, in order to get the so-called 'foot in the door'.

I believe that in the context of a civilized debate any idea should be able to be shared without legal repercussions, no matter how strongly I might disagree with those ideas.

Free speech fundamentally concerns the sharing of ideas — Tzeentch

Not just the sharing of ideas, but the freedom to criticize and question what others say, and reject or ignore it.

Who on this forum would instantly jump up and stampede over other people when they hear, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, without verifying that there was a fire first? Those that use this example are typically those that do what they are told without questioning, or act without thinking.

If we were to arrest those that ran over others (an action that qualifies as an assault) instead of the person that said something, then maybe we would encourage the rest of society to start thinking for themselves and not simply accept what others say without verification, and to think before they act.

I am skeptical of the "absolute" realization of principles, particularly one that is so specific. From a public policy perspective, it seems to make sense to me that some sort of bigoted free speech act, such as drawing the Prophet Mohammed might be allowable in a Western context, where it is likely to lead to a limited risk of violence, but unacceptable in other contexts (e.g. parts of Southeast Asia), where it might very well be expected to kick off deadly rioting.

From a public policy perspective, it seems to make sense to me that some sort of bigoted free speech act, such as drawing the Prophet Mohammed might be allowable in a Western context, where it is likely to lead to a limited risk of violence, but unacceptable in other contexts (e.g. parts of Southeast Asia), where it might very well be expected to kick off deadly rioting. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What you are describing is an authoritarian theocracy that has it's followers enthralled by their religion. This is typical behavior of a mass delusion, where people react violently when their version of the world is questioned or criticized. Was the problem the drawing or the fact that a whole society is not free to question their leaders and to think for themselves?

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say.

Who on this forum would instantly jump up and stampede over other people when they hear, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, without verifying that there was a fire first? Those that use this example are typically those that do what they are told without questioning, or act without thinking.
the
If we were to arrest those that ran over others (an action that qualifies as an assault) instead of the person that said something, then maybe we would encourage the rest of society to start thinking for themselves and not simply accept what others say without verification, and to think before they act. — Harry Hindu

I agree that it is very unlikely that a large group would stampede other people because they heard "fire" but I think you are deliberately missing the point of the example and I also sense a feeling of intellectual superiority in your answer

If we were to extrapolate the "fire" example to something much more serious such as the Southport riots where the UK experienced numerous violent riots targeted towards minority communities due to large-scale disinformation being purposefully spread, I think it would be correct to say there should be accountability for those people spreading the hurtful lies and not just blame the people who blindly follow.

You have to assume that some people are going to be gullible and stupid, and to not allow people to take advantage of that to push agendas. You can't punish people for not knowing better and not punish the people that do know better. (I am not saying the people committing criminals acts should not be arrested)

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say. — NOS4A2

Do you believe that there should be consequence to certain speech? Realistically we can all say whatever we want at any point, but do you believe people should be able to say WHATEVER they want at any point with no consequence ever?

As usual, TPFers are talking (writing) without knowing what they're talking about. What!? You object? Well, you must know what you're talking about. I think - subject to correction - that "free speech" is on the docket. Tell us, then, what that is. Is it, is there any such thing? What kind of a thing is it? What are its special features that distinguish it? What are its parts? For, or by, whom? For what purpose?

And in what country? I think all countries claim free speech, but what that means can be complicated, and I'm pretty sure it differs country to country. And of course the subject of rights, also needing to be limned.

Do you believe that there should be consequence to certain speech? Realistically we can all say whatever we want at any point, but do you believe people should be able to say WHATEVER they want at any point with no consequence ever?

No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever.

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say. — NOS4A2

Some lies are criminal ie. slander, defamation, inciting a riot. If I point at you and say "he stole my wallet" or "he just touched me/my child" and you get hurt or killed, that's an example of blood libel where I would be liable to be charged with a crime. It doesn't matter if you can defend yourself because in some contexts and scenarios you will be outnumbered and no amount of truth or innocence will save you from a bloody end, hence, the minority's plight (specifically if animosity and bias exists against you or your group already).

As usual, TPFers are talking (writing) without knowing what they're talking about. What!? You object? Well, you must know what you're talking about. I think - subject to correction - that "free speech" is on the docket. Tell us, then, what that is. Is it, is there any such thing? What kind of a thing is it? What are its special features that distinguish it? What are its parts? For, or by, whom? For what purpose?

And in what country? I think all countries claim free speech, but what that means can be complicated, and I'm pretty sure it differs country to country. And of course the subject of rights, also needing to be limned. — tim wood

Can I ask what you mean by TPFers? your response has a very hostile tone but I am not sure who it is directed at. If it is at me I am sure we can air out any issue you have.

You haven't added anything to the discussion you are just spamming questions, I think I was clear in my definition of absolutism / restrictive. And I am speaking on free speech mainly in America and the UK, if people would like to speak about other countries feel free.

A small quibble. Slander and defamation are usually civil wrongs, not criminal, but I don’t think they should be treated as such. In any case, the fact that something is a civil wrong or a crime doesn’t mean it ought to be. People still claim yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, for instance, but they are merely repeating the fatuous ruling of Oliver Wendell Holmes, which has long since been overruled by later precedent.

A small quibble. Slander and defamation are usually civil wrongs, not criminal, but I don’t think they should be treated as such. In any case, the fact that something is a civil wrong or a crime doesn’t mean it ought to be. People still claim yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, for instance, but they are merely repeating the fatuous ruling of Oliver Wendell Holmes, which has long since been overruled by later precedent. — NOS4A2

So should I be able to publicly slander and defame you for being a pedophile and lie, resulting in you losing your job and every social factor that would come along with that and be able to continue to carry on with my day with no repercussions?

Can I ask what you mean by TPFers? — Samlw

I mean us. Almost always discussions are launched without a definition of terms section, with the predictable result that much time and energy is wasted. To be sure there is a difference of opinion on the need for definitions. One of us especially, I won't name names, but he goes by @Banno, is quite sure that defining cages discussion. Since encountering his complaint even a long time ago, I have always attached to mine notions of tentativeness and adjustability and correctability. In short, any discussion is like encountering multiple paths on entering the woods. If you do not know what path you're on, then you don't know where you're going, or indeed what you might need, or encounter, on the way.

As evidence, I note your reference to "free speech" in the UK and US. But they're definitely not the same thing. As to the rest, you appear to take for granted what the expression means, and what everyone understands by it. I refer you to the plethora of SCOTUS cases on free speech, a survey of which ought to persuade you that it's all not so easy or simple. The easy way out, and a good and useful way, is simply to start a paragraph with, "What I mean by "free speech"...". Or generally, what I mean by X. That concept, whatever it is, can then be sculpted as needed for present purpose, whether by scalpel or scales or files or hand or argument or artillery, in any case the result bespoke for the discussion.

Or in other words, I can certainly be wrong-headed, but it's better to be wrong-headed on topic than to waste everyone's time on irrelevancies. Definitions, even just as starting points as aids to navigation, provide clarity and can forestall such waste.

What I mean by free speech is the ability to express opinions and ideas publicly, without fear of censorship or legal sanction.

The debate topic I would like to discuss is, should there be limits on certain speech and where people believe we should draw the line, hence my original post outlining absolutism and restricting speech.

I understand free speech is different in the UK and US but we do share a lot of similarities as does a lot of countries do in the western hemisphere.

Can I ask what you mean by TPFers? — Samlw

Tim means the members of TPF, The Philosophy Forum, and has for reasons known only to himself chosen to be difficult and weird. Don’t take it personally.

I am a free speech absolutist. You should have the inherent right to speak your mind at any time, and any place, without a fear of violence or another form of retalliation. It is up to others to decide how they wish to respond. This applies to all speech, even hate speech and so on.

Now, of course there will be consequences to your speech, as most human beings will use their emotions upon hearing something they don't like. There's still a powerful primitive element in most of us. However, the legal or moral repercussions should be based on actions (and evidence), not on words.

What I mean by free speech is the ability to express opinions and ideas publicly, without fear of censorship or legal sanction. — Samlw

The gist of the free-speech right in the first amendment to the US Constitution would appear to be absolute with respect to prior control.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As a refinement to understanding, I cannot do better than to refer to Justice David Souter's remarks at Harvard, in a Youtube video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCxaDwOCXD8

About 34-plus minutes. The speech starts at about 4:00, and can be listened to speeded up. And worth every minute. For present purpose, it's enough to start at 12:15 to about 22:30. One can then go back and listen to the rest.

The idea in a nutshell is that nothing is absolute, and to try to make it so or take it so is a big mistake, whether recognized as such or not. Nor is judging boundaries easy, but that a separate topic.

Sure. But riddle me this. Say people doing a dangerous job in a dangerous environment say with electricity are communicating to one another. "Is the voltage on?" "No" (when he either knowingly is aware it is or is otherwise unaware) sends an innocent family man to his death. That is, in most all legal systems, punishable in some way. So the same thing can apply to more casual and common situations. "Is that path safe?" asks a traveler new to an area. "Sure" says a resident who doesn't like unfamiliar people when the person knows it to be quite dangerous. These things count and actual real laws that respect this are in place, for very good reason. It's nice you've never been a victim or known someone you care about who has been a victim of a fatal lie, but you should be fully aware that makes your view one of conditional and circumstantial ignorance rather than one of true human liberty, one I have no doubt you would reverse if such things were to become true.

Another, common problem, is that some people, especially the most loud, annoying, and unintelligent, actually have no desire to speak or communicate anything, simply to disrupt for the sake of disruption. If I just enter a library or school or emergency city council meeting regarding an important social issue with real lives and livelihoods at stake and just start screaming "AHHHHHH, I FEEL GOOD!" over and over at the top of my lungs disrupting a public institution or service, I would likely be removed, and for good reason. It's just an annoying paradox that the people who talk the loudest and the most actually have the least valuable of things to contribute, which does weigh down an entire society. Which is fine, if that's allowed. But any rational person would agree there are situations where saying the wrong things could result in death or dismemberment that should be avoided.

What about, say, a grown man entering an elementary school or hanging out by the fence at the playground during recess and reciting graphic descriptions of his genitals (or something like that)? Is that what you'd shed your blood to protect? Really now, actually. Not just in the context of a random reply online, I mean, truly, putting yourself and all that you value on the line. Is it really?

However, the legal or moral repercussions should be based on actions (and evidence), not on words. — Martijn

As they are in the above examples. The man electrocuted because his buddy decided to speak a lie (or ignorant statement) as opposed to the (verifiable) truth. The innocent traveler led towards a wild oblivion to be killed or stranded because the local resident had no human decency or respect for human life. The person shutting down a taxpayer funded city council meeting because he just wanted to yell and perhaps was politically or personally motivated and actually had nothing he truly desired to communicate. The man traumatizing a group of school children because he "has a right to." All these things happen and cause real detriment and discourse in society. Do you not acknowledge that and remain unaware or do you simply not care? That is to say, do you believe that is the lesser of the two evils?

Thank you for the response. A few things need to be cleared up.

First of all, you should always trust your own instinct and accept the consequences of your own actions. Would you really blindly walk a potentially dangerous path, just because a stranger told you it was safe? Blind faith in anyone is always harmful, this has nothing to do with free speech.

Second, in your example regarding cooperation, this has to be a matter of trust. Any profession or task that requires a team to complete succesfully requires some level of trust and interdependence. If we would only sabotage each other, or get each other killed for no reason, the human species would not have survived for long. Cooperation is written in us genetically.

And third, there should be obvious exceptions regarding privacy and decency. No, a man should not be allowed to talk about his genitals near an elementary school. But that doesn't mean he should be banned from talking about his genitals, or get punished for it (by the legal system or otherwise). He should, if needed, be removed from the location if he does not cooperate, but that should be all.

Fundamentally, I do care. I care about autonomy and freedom more than about being 'nice' or 'safe'. I believe that, at the end of the day, the only one who you can truly trust is yourself. That doesn't mean that we should live in a free-for-all wasteland society, in fact it is important to live with virtue and kindness (I practice Stoic philosophy). And it doesn't mean I think other people are inherintely evil.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have, as authoritarianism and other evils can only begin to rise when we give up this crucial freedom.

The idea that a particular human activity (in this case speech) would be devoid of "consequence", is somewhere between absurd and naive in the extreme.

First of all, you should always trust your own instinct and accept the consequences of your own actions. — Martijn

See, the thing is, I can tell you're smart. Well-educated. And I'd argue you should be grateful for such good fortune. Likely a combination of caring people, a well-led society, and (perhaps above all, the all encompassing fact that you have) fortunate circumstances. Not everyone has that. So what is for you a simple almost brainlessly obvious act of "trusting one's own instinct" is for another person blindly following the lowest level of primal impulse. You must realize that and the disconnect between the haves and the have-nots, per se. To put it in common terms.

As far as the consequences of one's actions, that is generally true. However, if a stoplight is supposed to be red but fails to turn red and remains green and I continue driving, that's not something that can be placed on the individual. That, at least the concept of such, is my point.

Would you really blindly walk a potentially dangerous path, just because a stranger told you it was safe? — Martijn

Again, it's all about context. In the given example, one simply doesn't have a choice but to keep walking at such a point. So it's not a simple matter of "oh should I do this", it's quite literally: "Option A" or Option B." More with the context, he's not a stranger in this situation, I mean, he is, but he's from what any rational person would consider as "qualified" being a local resident. Sure, perhaps he could be lying. But if he seems to be hanging out in a relatively isolated area with all the creature comforts (perhaps literally at his house) then yes, one would assume he is qualified to give knowledge as he would reasonably know what is around, what's dangerous, and what isn't. Sure, it's not a great example as far as legally damning actions or statements that a court would pursue as manslaughter culpable negligence, but it touches on a fundamental point and the very concepts, events, and actions that are.

Second, in your example regarding cooperation, this has to be a matter of trust. Any profession or task that requires a team to complete succesfully requires some level of trust and interdependence. If we would only sabotage each other, or get each other killed for no reason, the human species would not have survived for long. Cooperation is written in us genetically. — Martijn

All of that's fine, but nowhere in the above snippet I quoted is there anything that suggests his use of free speech that resulted in a death was anything but criminal, and should be and remain criminal in any land, time, realm, or culture.

And third, there should be obvious exceptions — Martijn

Exactly. That's all I was trying to make you realize or admit: that no rational person is an absolutist as far as free speech.

I care about autonomy and freedom more than about being 'nice' or 'safe'. — Martijn

Do you not think that something that is wholly and fundamentally "unsafe" (dangerous to the very people who proliferate, support, defend, or otherwise live under it) is not a threat to its own existence?

I get the point you can't legislate morality or make people be nice to one another. That's unrealistic. But if something is fundamentally dangerous, isn't that a threat to itself? People voluntarily live in, support, and defend a society (often at slight expense of one's true, unrefined free will and desire) because it provides something a "free-for-all wasteland" does not: consistency. A reasonable expectation of what to expect and not to expect from one day to the next.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have, as authoritarianism and other evils can only begin to rise when we give up this crucial freedom. — Martijn

Again, for the most part I agree. Most all people, average, intelligent, decent, whatever they may be plan things and expect laws that accommodate themselves. It's the very small few who are either so deviously crafty, immoral, or whatever your choice of terms are, that can exploit things in ways the average person would never imagine. So, yeah, spot on.

(P.S.: I notice you're somewhat new here so just wanted to make it a point to inform you I'm not against anything you say personally, just as this is an intellectual debate forum, it's fairly standard to have one's views and opinions scrutinized as if the other's life depended on it. I don't like claiming to be "playing devil's advocate" as that might create the idea in one's mind I'm not genuinely wishing to express my arguments and hear your counter-arguments in return. Which I certainly am. :smile: )

If you do not know what path you're on, then you don't know where you're going... — tim wood

The master of slide put it like this...

What are the limits to free speech, If any? — Samlw

...looks like a request for a discussion of the nature of free speech. There's a good article in SEP, of course. But no one will read that. So I'll summarise: speech is one of the things we do, so if you value freedom in what folk may do, you will value freedom in what they may say. Hence your system of values will pretty much determine the extent to which you allow freedom of speech. And working through one's attitude towards free speech is very much working out one's attitude towards others, one's overall ethical stance.

Free speech is not, therefore, restricted to "sharing ideas" - burning the flag is an act of free speech. Burning it in the exit from a theatre, not so much. So supposing that one can say anything with no repercussions is hopelessly naive, along with the worst of libertarian thinking - on a par with thinking that folk may do anything, unrestricted.

These considerations show that we might expect to find with free speech the same approaches as to ethics generally. Consequentialism has already been raised, and found some unexpected bedfellows. perhaps posits a form of intuitionism. Where is deontology? One ought only say that which one could will to be universal laws... only what we could will everyone to say?

The idea in a nutshell is that nothing is absolute, and to try to make it so or take it so is a big mistake... — tim wood

Yep. It's a process rather than a definition. But this is to adopt a variant on virtue ethics.

"free speech" is either free, or restricted. So it's worded somewhat misleadingly.

To me, there are clear instances where utterances are blameworthy. Whether this should be legally codified is iffy. I think the consequence is more important. If no harm has come, I can't see why we would do so. And we already have laws that deal with actual (not perceived) harm.

So should I be able to publicly slander and defame you for being a pedophile and lie, resulting in you losing your job and every social factor that would come along with that and be able to continue to carry on with my day with no repercussions?

I don’t think you’d get the responses you’re looking for. The repercussion is you’ll be known as a liar, slanderer, and a defamer. You’d also have to live with yourself.

The repercussion is you’ll be known as a liar, slanderer, and a defamer. — NOS4A2

Not if you're successful - you will harm and that'll be that. Still happens these days.
That's the point. Causing actual damage is something which needs to be addressed. You cannot rely on social life for justice. It is almost never going to happen. I'm very sympathetic to an actual 'absolute' freedom of speech, but the harms visited by speech on concert with intent to harm is something I am not comfortable with.

Not if you're successful - you will harm and that'll be that. Still happens these days.
That's the point. Causing actual damage is something which needs to be addressed. You cannot rely on social life for justice. It is almost never going to happen. I'm very sympathetic to an actual 'absolute' freedom of speech, but the harms visited by speech on concert with intent to harm is something I am not comfortable with.

Kinetically speaking, causing damage with words is impossible. There isn’t enough energy in a word to inflict a wound on even the slightest of biologies. Perhaps yelling a word may harm an eardrum, but you could do the same with any sound.

The harms begin only in the reaction to words, and how people use them to justify their actions towards others.

I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said.

Something like a politician saying "Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose" or if you want, imagine an Imam doing the same.
If you want that to be allowed, and rely on human behaviour to reduce the out-going harm, so be it. I think this is patently absurd.