And it logically follows that if different people have different responses to the same stimuli then the influencer's intention is not the closest thing to the response of the listener - the listener's interpretation of the words and the speaker is. — Harry Hindu

Correct. I'm not saying that the influencer has 100 % control. And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all. Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero. But it's never 100 %.

You were just influencing me to write a reply which took two minutes of my lifetime. You just changed my history. If I missed a certain event in that other room during those two minutes, your influence was one of the many causes. Life is multicausal.

You're not answering the question.

What's the relevant difference between a radio receiver and a sense organ such that I can be said to be the cause of what happens after the radio receiver converts radio waves into electrical signals but cannot be said to be the cause of what happens after a sense organ converts sound waves into electrical signals?

You can't just assert that they're different without explaining what that difference is and why that difference makes a difference to the topic at hand (e.g. it's not enough to just say that the ear is organic and the radio receiver isn't).

You bring up the term “agent”, but what does that mean? If I say that the drought caused the famine am I putting the drought in the role of “agent”?

Your language reeks of folk psychology, which I thought you were against? We should only be addressing the physics of the matter, so commit to it. And when addressing the physics of the matter there is no good reason to believe that the human body’s response to sound waves is any different in principle to a bomb’s response to radio waves.

And on the example of the drought causing the famine, this once again shows that causal influence ought not be understood so reductively as only the immediate transfer of kinetic energy, as you try to do when misinterpreting what it means for speech to influence behaviour.

You should just accept that this approach you're taking to defend free speech is entirely misguided. You'd be better served arguing in favour of interactionist dualism and libertarian free will, or if that is a step too far then just that the causal influence speech has does not warrant legal restrictions.

I am being honest. Determinism applies to human organisms just as it applies to every other physical object and system in the universe. We're not special in any relevant way. — Michael

I never said, nor implied, that we are special. I said we are different, and that is the difference.

I said we are different, and that is the difference. — Harry Hindu

Different in what relevant way? A plant is different to a computer, but that would be an insufficient justification to simply assert that the behaviour of plants is not causally influenced by external stimuli. You need to actually flesh out what human organisms have that other things don’t that allows us to (uniquely?) defy determinism.

In the sense that they both follow the same natural laws of cause and effect; yes. The human brain is just more complicated. It's not as if it contains some immaterial soul that is able to put a stop to one causal chain and then begin a completely independent one. — Michael

The point of all of this is make clear that we should be politically free to say whatever words we want to, and to mean whatever we think we mean by those words in the context of adults discussing public policy, civil and criminal law…

…Words, meaning, and action need to be three separate things.
— Fire Ologist

Words, meaning and action need to be three separate things in order to protect the right to free speech from its being abridged by the government, but to allow the government to punish actions that reasonably follow certain speech in certain context. — Fire Ologist

Free speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate with others if you simply decided to use a string a scribbles in a way that the reader or listener is not privy to? What would you hope to accomplish? All you would be doing from the reader's and listener's perspective is drawing scribbles and making sounds - as if you were using a foreign language to them.

Free speech is not even saying anything you want without repercussions. That would be authoritarianism, not free speech, as the state would be able to say whatever they want without anyone questioning it, or to limit access to information that would enable others to make informed decisions and criticisms about what some authority is saying. Free speech is the capacity to question and criticize what others say, and to not simply accept whatever someone says.

Correct. I'm not saying that the influencer has 100 % control. And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all. Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero. But it's never 100 %. — Quk

What do you mean by "It's never 100%"?

Does 100% of everyone that is not deaf hear spoken words? Yes.

Does 100% of everyone that hears the same words react the same way? No.

Explain the difference.

I can’t tell if you are basically agreeing with me or what you are trying to modify about what I said.

You seem to be disagreeing with me. But you aren’t addressing anything I say specifically. As if we are scribbling at each other without communicating.

Free speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate with others — Harry Hindu

Take the word “free” out of the above and it is perfectly clearly true, and I think we both obviously agree about it. “speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate.” That makes perfect sense.

But “Free speech” is a political concept and saying “free” in your quote here doesn’t really say anything about the politics of free versus government regulated speech. You may as well have said “regulated speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate .” That is as true as your sentence regarding how language works, but says nothing about the difference between free and regulated speech (only their similarity as not being scribbles).

Free speech is not even saying anything you want without repercussions — Harry Hindu

That is not true. Free speech is precisely saying anything you want without governmental, state enforceable, repercussions.

There may be societal repercussions when you say “women should not be able to vote” or “stupid people need to be forced into education camps”, but freedom of speech means we all get to float any stupid idea we want to, and say it publicly and debate it as long as we want.

But if the speech incites harmful acts, the harmful actors can be punished.

And if those harm causing actors can demonstrate that they were incited to act by someone else’s speech, prompting them to trample their way out of a theater and kill someone, the speaker who promoted them may be held responsible for the actions of those who reacted to the speech. In such case, the state isn’t regulating the content of what was said (the content of the speech per se) but instead regulating the harmful effect caused by words said in a certain context to certain reasonable people.

That is the free speech question - when can the state tell someone to shut up? The starting point answer is never, unless that speech clearly incites illegal acts.

When speech has the only repercussion of pissing people off, or making them happy, or prompting more speech, it should never be abridged. No matter what it says or means. That is political freedom.

Free speech is not even saying anything you want without repercussions. That would be authoritarianism, not free speech, as the state would be able to say whatever they want without anyone questioning it — Harry Hindu

That doesn’t make any sense to me.

You are now talking about the state as a speaker.

Representatives of the state only get to speak on behalf of the state
- in court when the state prosecutes a crime, (which is precisely a debate to see who wins the argument)
- or when a diplomat speaks to a foreign state (in which case we all get to criticize or support what that diplomat said when they return home)
- or when the police arrest somebody, (which is also ultimately adjudicated in court.)

But politically, free speech means precisely everyone gets to say whatever they want, and people in government have to be free to say whatever they want as they are all just citizens - that’s government of the people, by the people, for the people. Candidates for office and elected leaders should be able to say whatever they want in political rallies. Legislators proposing legislation should be able to say whatever they want. All of that should be able to be debated, booed, harrayed, ignored. As long as it doesn’t obviously call for rioting, trampling, destroying private property.

In a free society, we can discuss and debate whether we should abolish private property, but until we change the current law protecting private property, no one gets to physically steal or trample other people and their property. And if my words “go storm the police station and burn it down” lead a frenzied mob to burn down the police station, I have broken the law by my speech. If those words lead to nothing, as me saying on TPF “go burn down your local police station” will lead to nothing, then the government should never be able to for TPF to take these words off the site.

Curfews, rules against yelling “fire!”, rules about inciting riots, rules about fraudulent or slanderous or “dangerous” speech - these are all fraught with the peril of authoritarianism.

But you do not seem to be focused on political speech. I don’t know what you are trying to say to me.

And I think you are a free speech proponent who sees the need to regulate harmful consequences like riots and trampling people running out of buildings because someone yelled “fire” - so I don’t know why you disagree with me so much.

Or are you saying we do have free speech? Or should not have free speech?

Sorry, I thought you asked why I was posting here.

The point of a constitution is to define the founding principles of a state.

Do you think you can be responsible for the actions of others?

No. No one cannot control another’s motor cortex with words.

Trust me, don’t yell “fire!” in a crowded room. Some people might hold you responsible for what other people do, that they will say was based on what you yelled.

As I wrote to you earlier in the thread, the “fire in a crowded theater” phrase was just an analogy, never a binding law. The ruling in which this analogy was used was overturned nearly 60 years ago. The constitution of the US does not forbid it yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Watch Christopher Hitchens dispel this myth at the outset of his delightful speech on free speech.

What's the relevant difference between a radio receiver and a sense organ such that I can be said to be the cause of what happens after the radio receiver converts radio waves into electrical signals but cannot be said to be the cause of what happens after a sense organ converts sound waves into electrical signals?

Human beings are organic, living, beings that have the capacity to move, think, and act, among many other activities. Radio receivers cannot do any of the above and have no such capacities. Humans use their environment to sense while radio receivers cannot.

You bring up the term “agent”, but what does that mean? If I say that the drought caused the famine am I putting the drought in the role of “agent”?

An agent is a general term in philosophy of mind denoting “a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment”.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency

Your language reeks of folk psychology, which I thought you were against? We should only be addressing the physics of the matter, so commit to it. And when addressing the physics of the matter there is no good reason to believe that the human body’s response to sound waves is any different in principle to a bomb’s response to radio waves.

And on the example of the drought causing the famine, this once again shows that causal influence ought not be understood so reductively as only the immediate transfer of kinetic energy, as you try to do when misinterpreting what it means for speech to influence behaviour.

You should just accept that this approach you're taking to defend free speech is entirely misguided. You'd be better served arguing in favour of interactionist dualism and libertarian free will, or if that is a step too far then just that the causal influence speech has does not warrant legal restrictions.

No, it appears I don’t need to concede to anything you say because nothing you’ve said has been convincing. All you can do is use agency in your analogies, then remove it when it comes to your physics, or when it’s otherwise convenient.

Do you think you can be responsible for the actions of others?

No. No one can control another’s motor cortex with words. — NOS4A2

Really. How about as a parent. Are you a parent? Do you think a parent can be responsible for the actions of their children? As in “kids, go spray paint the neighbors front door.” Do you think it’s all those kids fault and the parent’s little speech played no role in the paint in the neighbor’s door?

The legal history of the “yelling fire in a theatre case” is a red herring. The state can regulate speech when that speech leads to a crime that others commit or leads to harm caused by the actions of others. Check out Brandenburg v. Ohio if you want to be accurate. It overturned the “clear and present danger” test for regulating speech.

How about conspiracy laws? Mob boss says “go murder that guy.” And mob soldier goes out and murders that guy. Was the mob boss just an innocent speaker? Or part of conspiracy to commit murder and a murderer?

You are not answering my question.

How about laws? Don’t laws affect actions? Or a stop sign?

It’s obvious to me that my words cause others to take specific actions and so I can be held responsible for the outcome of the acts of others because they listened to my words.

Repeatedly talking about motor cortex’s is having no affect on the arguments. Motor cortex’s are how. They are not why. You are not talking politics and the question of free speech is a political one.

What do you mean by "It's never 100%"? — Harry Hindu

Mavis says to Oscar: "Oscar, eat this pill or you end up in hell."


Example 1:

Oscar hates this pill, but he eats it anyway as he's very naive and afraid of hell.

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar almost 100 %. Almost, not fully, because Oscar still has a brain of its own.


Example 2:

Oscar replies: "No, I won't eat the pill now. Maybe tomorrow."

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar just a little because Oscar obviously declines the instruction, but maybe he'll reconsider tomorrow.


In short: Influence is not a binary matter of "all or nothing". Influence has a variable magnitude. That's what I mean.

Human beings are organic, living, beings that have the capacity to move, think, and act, among many other activities. Radio receivers cannot do any of the above and have no such capacities. Humans use their environment to sense while radio receivers cannot. — NOS4A2

I'm not asking you to compare radio receivers to humans; I'm asking you to compare radio receivers to sense organs. Why is it that I can be said to cause a radio receiver to send an electrical signal to the catalyst but I can't be said to cause a sense organ to send an electrical signal to the brain?

But if you want to compare humans to something then let's compare them to robots or Venus flytraps. Why is it that I can be said to causally influence the behaviour of robots and Venus flytraps but not humans? They move and act, and in the case of Venus flytraps are living, organic beings. Or will you say that I can't causally influence the behaviour of robots and Venus flytraps?

As for your reference to thinking, recall here where you said "when considering the human body, its activities, and what it expresses, nothing called a 'thought' can be found there." Are you now abandoning eliminative materialism in favour of folk psychology?

An agent is a general term in philosophy of mind denoting “a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment”. — NOS4A2

Everything has the capacity to act and influence the environment. Unless you mean something specific by "act" that applies only to humans and not also to insects, plants, bacteria, and volcanos? Then what is this specific sense of "act"?

Your link mentions "intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states and events", but once again such terms like "intentionality" and "mental states" are things that you have previously rejected. Are you now endorsing something like interactionist dualism?

All you can do is use agency in your analogies, then remove it when it comes to your physics, or when it’s otherwise convenient. — NOS4A2

You are the one who introduced the term "agency". I have only ever been addressing the physics. I can cause someone to turn around, the fly can cause the Venus flytrap to close its jaws, and the drought can cause a famine.

Different in what relevant way? A plant is different to a computer, but that would be an insufficient justification to simply assert that the behaviour of plants is not causally influenced by external stimuli. You need to actually flesh out what human organisms have that other things don’t that allows us to (uniquely?) defy determinism. — Michael

I'm not trying to defy determinism. I'm embracing it. You simply aren't reading.

The difference lies in the reason why we observe a difference in behaviors when multiple people hear the same speech. For determinism to be true, which I believe it is, you have to provide a theory to explain what we observe in that multiple people react differently to the same speech. What is your theory? How do you explain what we observe?

Mavis says to Oscar: "Oscar, eat this pill or you end up in hell."


Example 1:

Oscar hates this pill, but he eats it anyway as he's very naive and afraid of hell.

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar almost 100 %. Almost, not fully, because Oscar still has a brain of its own.


Example 2:

Oscar replies: "No, I won't eat the pill now. Maybe tomorrow."

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar just a little because Oscar obviously declines the instruction, but maybe he'll reconsider tomorrow.


In short: Influence is not a binary matter of "all or nothing". Influence has a variable magnitude. That's what I mean. — Quk

You forgot the most important example.

Example 3:

Oscar replies: "No, I will never eat this pill because Mavis is full of shit and has a history of lying and manipulating others".

How much influence did Mavis have on Oscar here? Effectively, Mavis just made a bunch a sounds with his mouth as Oscar did not interpret those sounds as representing reality in any way.

Representatives of the state only get to speak on behalf of the state. — Fire Ologist

Not in a government composed of two political parties where the political parties do not speak on behalf of the state, but on behalf of their party. When the party regulates the speech of their constituents by only providing partial information, your freedom to information is restricted and therefore your ideas would be restricted which effectively limits your speech. The party also regulates speech by ostracizing any party member that questions the party's claims. This is how political parties become a political construct of group-think.

How much influence did Mavis have on Oscar here? — Harry Hindu

Zero.

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 %. That's what I meant to say.

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 %. That's what I meant to say. — Quk

Well, you wrote this:

And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all. — Quk

Isn't that what I just showed that there are times where the "influencer" had no influence at all?

If that is what you meant to say then why did you not include the 3rd example? It seemed to me that you were unwilling to acknowledge that there was a 0%. Michael appears to not recognize this simple fact either.

I would not be influenced by what Mavis said because I don't believe in the existence of hell. If Mavis told you that "If you don't take the pill a unicorn will come and trample you in your bed tonight.", would you be influenced to take the pill, even just 1%?

But the fact that there is variation is trivial. WHY is there a variation? Is there some common theme where those that are influenced more share some common characteristic as opposed to those that are influenced only a little or none at all? I think there is and it is access to all the relevant information regarding some issue or event. The freedom to access all information that enables us to make informed decisions about what is said is what enables free speech.

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 % — Quk

Now that I think a bit further about it, in what way is there even a variance? Either you take the pill or you don't (whether it's tomorrow or next week). Either you riot or you don't. Either you stampede over people in a theater after hearing "Fire!", or you don't. So it seems more of either 100% or 0%, with no variance.

It seemed to me that you were unwilling to acknowledge that there was a 0%. — Harry Hindu

I've been acknowledging that 0 % influence can occur as well. I'm quoting myself:

Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero. — Quk

So, sometimes it's greater than zero -- which implies that sometimes it isn't.

When you say "sometimes it's X" then you imply that "sometimes it's not X." Do you see the dual logic of the word "sometimes"? The word "sometimes" has a different meaning than "always".

Anyway, all I want to say is that in my view influence is gradually variable rather than a hard yes-no-issue. I'm glad to read you agree with my view.

Your example #3 is fine and correct. It's just not essential for the illustration that influence is variable because variability includes the number zero anyway.

Ok, but now I've moved on to ask about why there is a difference and to question the validity that there even is a variance. Read the rest of the post you quoted and the post after that.

But the fact that there is variation is trivial. — Harry Hindu

Yes, it's trivial. But some people don't get it or don't want to get it and rather play rhetorical games; they categorically round any influence down to zero. They do this by saying any free speech is just an "offering". I think this is just a rhetorical shift at the surface while the substance underneath remains the same: Call the emotional Pepsi-advertisement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the false fire alarm an "offering" -- its influence remains; call any incitement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the training program of the football coach an "offering" -- the coach's influence remains.

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be all-knowing, so you can at any time detect whether the message you hear is nonsense or not.

Now who on this forum is all-knowing?

I'll add a second point:

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be -- like a machine -- completely free of emotions, so nobody can make you feel happy or sad; no comedian and no joke can make you laugh, and when your beloved one is dying you can't cry, and no film or music can change your mood.

Now who on this forum is cold as ice?

Not in a government composed of two political parties where the political parties do not speak on behalf of the state, but on behalf of their party. When the party regulates the speech of their constituents by only providing partial information, your freedom to information is restricted and therefore your ideas would be restricted which effectively limits your speech. The party also regulates speech by ostracizing any party member that questions the party's claims. This is how political parties become a political construct of group-think. — Harry Hindu

You are just talking about how hard it is to be good voter and to determine who there is to vote for, and be a free citizen, and avail yourself of your freedom of speech, to dig deep and make the above observations and stay as free from undue influence as you can.

Voted "other."

I think free speech is a double edge sword no matter how you cut it. Full free speech will end up with the majority shouting down the minority. Restricted free speech gives the government power to decide who gets to speak and create false ideological majorities. Frankly I don't think there is a good answer either way, though I lean more towards free speech than not.

Full free speech will end up with the majority shouting down the minority. Restricted free speech gives the government power — MrLiminal

Can’t we, in a free society always just ignore the majority if we want? It may take courage, but the majority shouting down the minority is still immensely better than a government silencing the individual and forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do.

Screw the majority! Be bold. And screw the government too. In a truly totalitarian state, you can’t say “screw the government” or really, you can only say what the government and the majority it allows to exist says. Majority and government become a monopoly on speech under a government that regulates speech.

The media sucks. The majority is really loud and intrusive. Those are not the same issue as the government regulating speech.

In a perfect world, yes. But I think the realities of life mean that the majority will always try to impose its will on the minority, and that bad actors will use unrestricted free speech in ways that are actively harmful. Imo, a majority often operates like a single creature that reacts very negatively to things that threaten its power/worldview. As I said, I lean towards free speech more than not, but I also recognize that at a certain point any power that is free to everyone will eventually become concentrated in increasingly small groups through consolidation (intended or otherwise).

I think of the story of the Emperor with No Clothes. Technically everyone is free to point out the king is naked, but the majority disagrees and pressures everyone into silence/agreement.

and pressures everyone into silence/agreement — MrLiminal

I certainly see what you are saying. I just think there is a sort of categorical, paradigmatic difference between a government that has to respect free speech, and a government that regulates speech. There will always be loud majorities who bully - in a free state, there is recourse, but in a totalitarian state, there is none.

I mostly agree, which is why I lean towards more free speech than not. I just think that, in an environment with totally unrestricted free speech, the end result can end up being similar to a restricted speech environment. And to that end, self-censorship imposed by majority pressure is arguably harder to break than externally imposed censorship from the government, as external censorship is more likely to create direct resistance.

So we conclude: The best solution is a compromise close to "almost unlimited freedom".

It’s obvious to me that my words cause others to take specific actions and so I can be held responsible for the outcome of the acts of others because they listened to my words.

Repeatedly talking about motor cortex’s is having no affect on the arguments. Motor cortex’s are how. They are not why. You are not talking politics and the question of free speech is a political one.

Then let’s try it. Use your words and cause me to take specific actions.