First, speech can not literally cause the violent reaction. If that were the case, then people would not be able to hear the speech without having a violent reaction.

Some people might not be able to control themselves very well in the way they react to speech. But the problem in that case is their lack of control. They'd need to work on that.

You're conflating speech and things like rape and bombings. For some odd reason you can't see the distinction between speech and other actions. — Terrapin Station

Conflating? No, I don't think so. I'm connecting the two. Causally-connecting.

Conflating? No, I don't think so. I'm connecting the two. Causally-connecting. — Pattern-chaser

Conflating because you're jumping from support of free speech to support of bombings, for example, as if there's no distinction between the two.

Who decided what "hate speech" is in the UK? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

A general consensus, I think. Maybe not. I don't know the factual answer to your question, sorry.

I find it hard to understand why anyone would wish to protect hate speech. Nearly every nation in the world happily bans murder, but inciting others to commit murder is OK. After all, the murderer should be able to control themselves; how could the hate-speaker possibly bear any responsibility? And yet we know, pragmatically, confirmed by empirical observation, that many murderers can't control themselves. These are not exceptionally weak-willed people, they're just human beings like the rest of us.

We know, confirmed by empirical observation, that any utterance telling someone to murder someone else doesn't cause anyone to murder anyone else, because the utterances are made and the murders are not made. If the utterance was causal, that couldn't be the case. Something else has to be the cause.

you're jumping from support of free speech to support of bombings, for example, as if there's no distinction between the two. — Terrapin Station

No I'm not. Those who defend unconstrained free speech must allow hate speech. Hate speech incites others to violence. An (admittedly extreme) example of such violence is the bombing of civilians.

There is a clear "distinction", to use your words. More clearly, there is a clear progression in the reasoning. Free speech allows hate speech; hate speech incites violence (violence that actually occurs); therefore support for unconstrained free speech supports and encourages violence.

Hate speech doesn't cause violence. So supporting hate speech isn't supporting violence.

We know, confirmed by empirical observation, that any utterance telling someone to murder someone else sometimes causes someone to murder someone else, because the utterances are made and the murders sometimes happen.

The recent El Paso shooter confirmed his intended targets were "Hispanics", and his actions followed hate speech from the POTUS directed against them. The connection cannot be proven, of course. That isn't possible. But it's a desperately sad coincidence, if that's what it is.

We know, confirmed by empirical observation, that any utterance telling someone to murder someone else sometimes causes someone to murder someone else, because the utterances are made and the murders sometimes happen. — Pattern-chaser

"Cause" isn't "sometimes."

If the utterance is causal to the action, then when the utterance is made, the action is going to occur.

hate speech from the POTUS directed against them — Pattern-chaser

I don't follow daily politics very much. What speech was this?

When discussing human behaviour, we cannot expect precise, logical and repeatable behaviour. Or we can expect it, but we'd be disappointed. Different people react differently. Some will do nothing in response to Herr Goebbels' rabidly-expressed hatred of Jews; others did respond as Goebbells hoped. There is no hate speech that will cause anyone who hears it to be violent. Only some will commit violence after being so encouraged. Nevertheless, this response is typical of humans, and common in humans. So pragmatically, it makes sense to oppose it if we wish to minimise violence (maybe thereby maximising our co-operatively achieved purpose).

we cannot expect precise, logical and repeatable behaviour. — Pattern-chaser

Then you're not talking about causality.

Different people react differently. — Pattern-chaser

Which means that the cause isn't the speech, but something else. Something about the person in question.

There are a lot of things that would minimize violence that I wouldn't be at all in favor of. These things include:
* Not allowing people to leave their homes,
* Stopping and frisking everyone in public, whenever they enter a store, etc.
* Not allowing motor vehicles

Etc.

Then you're not talking about causality. — Terrapin Station

Could it not be, rather, that you are not talking about single causes?
I spray a strong allergen over a high school. Not everyone gets hives but many do. Could my action be considered immoral and causal`? Could the defense argue that it was caused by the immune system responses and not the allergen? At what percentage of rashes would my action no longer considered causal? Like it it's ten percent is it now really just their idiosyncratic reactions? We could switch to toxins with worse effects.

Which means that the cause isn't the speech, but something else. Something about the person in question.

Exactly right. Pretending speech causes the movement of matter is essentially to believe in sorcery.

Exactly right. Pretending speech causes the movement of matter is essentially to believe in sorcery. — NOS4A2

Why is it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater (when there's no fire).`?
And then of course speech moves matter. Waves in the air, vibrations in the inner ear. Changes in the neurons in the other person's brain. Startle responses. People following orders. People being told directions, including wrong ones. Hearing bad news. Hearing good news. Getting a compliment. In all instances matter is being moved by speech. Heck even my humble words on the screen are moving matter as you read.

Why is it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater (when there's no fire).`? — Coben

That's a good question that would be interesting to research historically--the roots of the belief that speech can be to blame in situations like that.

That's a good question that would be interesting to research historically--the roots of the belief that speech can be to blame in situations like that. — Terrapin Station

I can't see how speech isn't causal in that situation. (though there is potential energy and keyed in concepts that also contribute to the effects)

I think we could devise an illegal experiment. Shouting duck or fire or rape or bomb in various locations and then having control tests in similar location types, to see if speech is causal.

Blame is a different concept. Though there are many situations where I would blame people for saying certain things that I would consider having led to certain consequences: perjury, false witness in general, false rumors, true rumors, people betraying confidence, parents insulting children, threats......

I think we could devise an illegal experiment. Shouting duck or fire or rape or bomb in various locations and then having control tests in similar location types, to see if speech is causal. — Coben

If it's causal, then no matter who is hearing it, they need to react in the relevant way. Otherwise we need to account for the difference.

If it's causal, then no matter who is hearing it, they need to react in the relevant way. Otherwise we need to account for the difference. — Terrapin Station

Could you make the statement that I think is implicit in this...I would guess it is something like:
If something does not affect everyone the same way or the specific way at issue it is not causal. But if that's not the right implicit statement, let me know what is.

Is maleria causal in the deaths of those who do die of maleria even if others survive? Does something have to be the only factor to be causal? Or the aids virus in aids?

Could we blame someone for giving someone the aids virus, like intnetionally with a dirty needle as a weapon, say, even though not all who get the virus die or even get sick?

Or my spraying of allergens or toxins example a couple of posts back. Or what I said about blame in the previous post.

If we're specifying the cause if x, we need to list everything that deterministically produced x.

For one, in saying that speech is causal to some action, we're denying that the people who performed the action in question had free will--that they had any choice in how they acted. This would amount to saying that the soundwaves in question had a physical effect on the person so that, in combination with the other physical factors that we'd need to specify, they were literally forced to perform the action in question. That's what causality is.

Why is it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater (when there's no fire).`? — Coben

A little historical information will help. There have been very bad fires in theaters, night clubs, and the like, resulting in very large losses of life. When someone smells smoke, sees the flames, etc. and sounds the alarm, people will all bolt for the door. No singledoorway can accommodate more than 3 or 4 people at a time. If 500 people try to get through a doorway at once, they will compact, trample and kill some people, and become an interlocked mass. If there is smoke and fire and many people, it is practically guaranteed that a good many will die where they are standing.

Similar disasters have happened at soccer and rugby matches, when for some reason people stampeded for the exits which were not wide enough to allow a mass of people to move through. In those cases, the deaths were from being crushed under foot and suffocating.

Sometimes doors have been criminally locked or bolted shut, and then the loss of life was even worse.

So, walking into a theater where there is no fire and yelling "FIRE!" is likely to lead to a stampede which will probably result in at least a few deaths, for which the person yelling "FIRE!" would be responsible.

The recent El Paso shooter confirmed his intended targets were "Hispanics", and his actions followed hate speech from the POTUS directed against them. The connection cannot be proven, of course. — Pattern-chaser

I agree with you that speech can incite others to act. It isn't as simple as me saying "Kill Bill" and you rushing out and shooting Bill in the head. The El Paso murderer claimed that he intended to kill hispanics, and he did. I'll take him at his word that he did what he wished and intended to do. Whether or not the El Paso murderer committed his crimes because he listened to one, two, several, or more speeches by Trump can not be proven, as you say. DT has attacked several groups repeatedly, and a lot of people get shot, so it's a bit difficult to disentangle one shooting from another.

Trump hasn't said anything as directive as King Henry II, "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" which inspired the murder of Thomas à Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. It's also not quite as inflammatory as "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. And it wasn't the King who said it. It was the character "Dick". Henry wouldn't have been helped by killing all the lawyers. Most kings and hip POTUS must needs all the legal help they can get.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not first amendment standard any longer. That’s a common misconception. The current standard is “immanent lawless action”.

Yes, speaking moves air, but you’d have to show how one combination of articulated guttural sounds can manipulate air differently than any other.

Just to be sure, the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” analogy was never law, but an analogy. The case in which the Judge (Oliver Wendell Holmes) used the analogy was overturned over 40 years ago.

Do you think death threats/threats of physical violence/extortion should be legal?

Should adults be allowed to say anything they want to children?

Allowed by whom?

Government. Should there be laws regulating what adults can say to kids, or does anything go?

Wouldn't it depend on whose children you are talking to and under what circumstances? Like, telling the neighbor's children that their mother is a whore might result in harmonious neighborly relationships. You can probably tell your own children whatever you want. If you are a teacher, there are all sorts of things you ought and ought not say, if you want to keep your job.

There are some laws against making indecent proposals to children. Should there be? I read in a book that people are stupid, so there probably have to be laws to deal with stupid people.

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.

Are you finding that the law is crimping your style?