Sorry, what? ;-) That second sentence doesn't make sense to me. — Terrapin Station

Sorry. I'll just shift it to a question. How come the bomb utterance is an exception to free speech? And, I certainly get the specific problems that come up with yelling 'bomb'. The answer I am looking for is related to a general rule for exceptions to absolute free speech. Why is free will no longer an issue in this case?

How come the bomb utterance is an exception to free speech? — Coben

I said I wouldn't make that illegal.

@Terrapin Station

I'm presuming you accept the principle of joint causal responsibility? That if more than one factor jointly causes a consequence then each factor can be rightly said to bear some responsibility for it?

If so, then I'm struggling to see how you're supporting your position without invoking magical woo (which lawmakers rightly try to avoid).

If a person says "kill all Jews" and the context or circumstances lead me to believe that is the right thing to do, and if that belief then leads me to kill a jew, all of that mental causal chain must have been physical right? Neurons acting on other neurons. Without invoking some woo, that's all we've got to explain it.

So I don't understand how that is any different from the physical chain that can be seen between pulling a trigger, causing a bullet to leave a gun, to enter a person, to rupture an organ and to thereby kill them. We have no trouble attributing their death to the person who pulled the trigger. None of the stages necessarily leads to the other (the bullet could get jammed, it might miss etc) but the chain of events is physical.

So with hate speech, it might not necessarily lead to violence (just as pulling the trigger might not necessarily lead to the victim's death), but the role it plays in the mental chain of events must be no less physical, otherwise you have a huge burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of this non-physical element of decision making.

Oh, sorry, missed the double neg. Go forth, then, consistent one, and speak freely.

Yes, there should be no law regarding speech. But that doesn’t mean adults should be allowed to abuse children. Parents should immediately remove their child from any situation of verbal abuse, bullying etc.

What if you heard a word from a language you do not understand? It’s a word, it has meaning, but it could only cause confusion. Did the word cause confusion, or was it your lack of knowledge that did it?

Law or analogy, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater remains a bad idea. Unless, of course, the theater is packed with Republicans, then it might be classed as a public service

Bad idea or not, one is free to do so, and we should refrain from perpetuating that myth.

Is it a myth that people unnecessarily alarmed in this way could be injured in the fight to escape the (non-existent) fire? And isn't that potential injury the basis for a common-sense-based prohibition of shouting "fire" in a crowded area, when there is no actual fire? :roll:

Sure they could, but they could not.

There are a bunch of videos of Christopher Hitchens yelling fire in the venues in which he was giving a speech. He did this to illustrate the fatuity of Holmes’ “yelling fire” dictum.

No-one is claiming this is a LAW or something. It's a sensible suggestion that works often enough that we continue to use it even if there are occasions when it is accidentally misapplied. A rule of thumb. We use them all the time, don't we? :wink:

Yeah I think it is unwise to yell fire in a crowded theater. My only contention was the legality of it.

But also, the dictum is used in the service of censorship, so I think some opposition to it might be necessary.

My only contention was the legality of it. — NOS4A2

Laws are made by people. If the people think this is serious enough, and they find that awkward bastards ignore it, they turn it into a law. Such is their right. Your preference is valid, but the will of the people, expressed in their laws, overrule you if you're in their country/tribal area, etc.

To pretend that we can successfully operate a human society without censorship is naive, I think. All we can do - and *I* think we should do - is to keep it to an absolute minimum.

Laws are made by people. If the people think this is serious enough, and they find that awkward bastards ignore it, they turn it into a law. Such is their right. Your preference is valid, but the will of the people, expressed in their laws, overrule you if you're in their country/tribal area, etc.

Of course that’s true. But that doesn’t mean they’re right, and that’s why we refrain from appealing to popularity.

To pretend that we can successfully operate a human society without censorship is naive, I think. All we can do - and *I* think we should do - is to keep it to an absolute minimum.

I think the opposite, that to believe we cannot operate a human society free from censorship is naive, if not dogmatism.

But that doesn’t mean they’re right, — NOS4A2

Actually, and in practice, it does. The people of a tribe or nation may create laws as they wish, and they are "right" to do so. The laws they create apply only to themselves, and to those who choose to visit them. Americans are insane to allow (enforce?) gun ownership, but they are the ones who suffer all the shootings, so it's difficult to say they're "wrong". All we can do, form outside their borders and their society, is to sympathise, and not to allow guns in our own countries. There are a million other examples.

Your idea of rightness, and the way you express it, sounds like you are promoting the One and Only Truth in these matters, and I don't think you are. There is no universal 'right' in this case.

I said it doesn’t mean that they are right, not that they are wrong. For instance slavery was permitted by law. Were they right to do so?

To pretend that we can successfully operate a human society without censorship is naive — Pattern-chaser

Holy moley.

But also, the dictum is used in the service of censorship, so I think some opposition to it might be necessary. — NOS4A2

I'm all in favor of resisting the censors and their wishes to silence people. You can find much better examples of censorship vs. freedom of speech than defending the rather weak, alleged "right" to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. How about banned books? The Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, or To Kill a Mockingbird... How about bans on teaching evolution (not in 1924, but in the present year)? The right to discuss organizing a union among fellow workers?

Well the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” analogy was used to justify the censorship of socialists handing out pamphlets criticizing the draft. They were convicted. This is a prime example of censorship of the worst kind.

Totally agree.

What about calling in bomb threats to schools? Should that be legal?

What if you heard a word from a language you do not understand? It’s a word, it has meaning, but it could only cause confusion. Did the word cause confusion, or was it your lack of knowledge that did it? — NOS4A2

It could be a range of situations with different weights of causes. Some where the speaker is more resposible, though my brain state or knowledge base is also causal. Someone yelling bomb at the airport, in L.A. say, has a strong statististical chance of causal some terror in a number of people and likely very quick, potentially harmful movement in a number of people. We tend to hold people responsible for actions that have statisticial outcomes, not just inevitable ones. It is possible you, as an individual, never hold people responsible, if there is any possibility someone's actions might not have led to problems. I think it is very unlikely you do this, but I don't know you. Perjury, for example, might not convince a jury you are guilty, but most people want that to be a crime. Now the perjurious individual may not be understood, and, in fact, the jury's various brains must 'understand' that witness, understand 'English', draw certain conclusions from your lies. They may not do this. But they may. And so we make this a crime even though it is not like firing a bullet at someone's brain. It is not Newtonian. But still we hold the person responsible for an immoral and illegal act, even though they are not in full control of the outcome.

To pretend that we can successfully operate a human society without censorship is naive
— Pattern-chaser

Holy moley. — Terrapin Station

I would actually start at the other end. Let's make it safe for the most vulnerable at the same time extremely important free speech like whisteblowers. It is actually getting worse for whistelblowers. Obama was terrible about them. Businesses have even more options now. The media are more centralized which can make it harder to find a solid outlet willing to protect the whisteblower.

For instance slavery was permitted by law. Were they right to do so? — NOS4A2

From my point of view, and probably yours too, they would be wrong. From *their* point of view, it would be right. Societies set their own laws, as they should, yes?

From my point of view, and probably yours too, they would be wrong. From *their* point of view, it would be right. Societies set their own laws, as they should, yes? — Pattern-chaser

Although the only way such laws change is via people in the society in question not agreeing with them.

"Just as with beliefs, we don't really choose them. That doesn't mean that we can't influence them at all--although it's not necessarily easy to influence them, but it's not like picking an ice cream flavor or something like that. You're going to believe what you do, feel what you do (about moral issues, etc.) because of dispositions you have, because of deep-rooted other beliefs and feelings you have, etc., where you didn't simply choose your dispositions."

So we don't have 100% control over our beliefs or mores, they are at least partly caused by other factors, but we do have 100% control over our responses to the speech of others. Unless you have some psychological evidence I'm lacking, it sounds suspiciously like you're designing your personal psychological theories around getting the results you want, rather than working from an empirical basis.

I think we have pretty good arguments as to why they were wrong, and pretty bad arguments as to why they were right. Societies set their own laws, but those laws can still be right or wrong, for instance Nuremberg laws, blasphemy laws, laws punishing sorcery—there are very good reasons as to why they are wrong, with very poor reasons as to why they are right.

Although the only way such laws change is via people in the society in question not agreeing with them. — Terrapin Station

Yep.

Disallowing or banning hate speech seems an awful lot like addressing a symptom instead of the illness itself. I'd even argue the idea that hate speech causes violence has parallels with the idea that videogames cause violence.

It also seems like a slippery slope, because what falls under the umbrella of hate speech is not just subjective, but tied to culture, which makes it malleable. This creates a potential exploit for those using the system to further their own agendas.

A better option would be to use one's own freedom of speech to challenge and undermine hate speech because it is validation that emboldens people to act upon it.

What is truly needed though, is to analyze what brings people to the kind of mindsets that would feel hate speech is justified, and take corrective action. That kind of nonsense is the stuff that is cultivated from formative years, i.e. Home/upbringing.