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”. — NOS4A2

I didn't say anything about the first ammendment. i was talking about speech moving people/matter. I didn't know it was first A before. I gave some other examples in other posts above of speech moving matter. Duck, heads up, rape, bomb, will all make people move. Even if that last one screamed at an airport doesn't fool a lot of people, men in blue will move and then move you to a little room.

Yes, speaking moves air, but you’d have to show how one combination of articulated guttural sounds can manipulate air differently than any other. — NOS4A2

'Grybhshalabhagbh'
and then
'Your father's home from Iraq and waiting in the backyard'

each said in low tones to the guy's kids. Adn then all the other examples.

Words have meaning. People hear that meaning in speech and this causes all sort of things to happen if the right words are chosen. Or the wrong words.

Spies telling lies.
Powell telling people he had a photo of WOMD. Think of all the matter that contributed to moving around.
Hitler moved incredible amounts of matter via speaking.
Call a school with a bomb threat.
A woman tells a man she's pregnant. (and at least in the past this often led to marriages and people moving to new places to live)
Callin the police and using certain words.
The fire department.
Artillary group commanders words
The orders of a nuclear sub captain.

The speech will all end up moving different amounts of air, cause the bodies that change direction or take action or bombs will all move air. If moving air is the criterion we are out after.


We've got laws on the books for this all over the place: conspiracy laws, incidement to riot, slander, perjury and more. Most of these laws are related to changes in the placement of matter and since you can be called into court for them, lead to movement in your matter.

Lying in court could move someone into prison. As can telling the truth.

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. — Terrapin Station

I think causality is more complicated than that. Or broader.

I appreciate you expanding though I wish you'd work with the other examples, and then move this over to blame, which you brought up and I can see why.

Someone goes around at work and tells people you are a pedophile. He chooses people who don't know you so well. He does this using social media also. Could it never be the case that you would blame him for consequences? Consider his behavior was one of the causes of unpleasance for you? One of the causes? Other people's gullibility and liking for gossip, predisposition to judge...ets. were all factors also. But could you imagine blaming him? Reporting it as a crime? suggesting a boss fire him? See it as an action with bad effects and as such as a cause, even though other people also bear some responsibility?

Perjury - would not force a jury to convict, but in amongst other factors could be, I think, argued to be causal.

Screaming bomb at an airport that leads to injury. Can we not argue that is causal, even if most of the people either reacted blase or ran in a careful manner, but one person ran over your child while running to get outside. Could we not blame the screamer for causing your child pain?

Can we say smoking causes lund cancer? This example and other medical type ones are focused on the issue of a variety of results in individuals.

Must it be the only cause? What percentage of effectiveness must it have?

And note: even if you concede some of these points, it does not mean that hate specch is necessarily something that should be illegal. I was reacting to what you and others were arguing against it being treated as causal. I think there is swing room still to be covered.

I just think you are presenting too limited a version of causality and also of when most of us would assign blame. I think there are more steps necessary before we preclude hate speech laws being irrational or problematic.

I don't want to address a bunch of different stuff, because there are different issues to get into with all of it, and I hate trying to talk about an increasing number of different issues at the same time. If posts keep getting longer, we're going off track in my opinion:

So I'll just address a couple things. I don't mind going back to the others, but one thing at a time until we're done with it so that it doesn't have to come up again:

Could it never be the case that you would blame him for consequences? — Coben

That's correct. Any actions by others in response to his saying that I'm a pedophile wouldn't be caused by him. Thus he's not to blame for those actions.

But could you imagine blaming him? Reporting it as a crime? suggesting a boss fire him? See it as an action with bad effects and as such as a cause, even though other people also bear some responsibility? — Coben

I would never do any of that stuff. I'm a free speech absolutist, and that includes that I'd not make slander/libel illegal or want it socially pressured away a la firing someone, etc.

The society we need is one where people don't believe something just because someone says it. Making slander/libel illegal doesn't lead to that society.

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. — Terrapin Station

We konw, confirmed by empirical observation, that any pulling of the trigger of a loaded gun that is pointing at someone doesn't cause anyone to die, because the trigger is pulled and the person being pointed to doesn't die (sometimes). If pulling the trigger was causal, that couldn't be the case. Something else has to be the cause. Therefore pulling the trigger of a loaded gun pointing at someone is ok because it doesn't cause any harm.

I don't really have an opinion I care to share on this topic (because it's not well developed or supported and I don't care to develop or support it) but I'm just saying that this way of arguing seems very useless when you ask "Should X be allowed". The answer is always going to be yes.

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

I'd have a category of criminal threatening, but it would have pretty specific criteria:

Threatening anyone should only be a crime when it's an immediate, "physical" threat in the sense of potential victims being within the range of the threatening instruments (whether just one's body, or weapons, or causally connected remote devices or substances, etc.), which are actual and not simply claimed, so that (a) either a verbal (or written, etc.) or body language threat is explicitly made, (b) the threat is reasonably considered a serious premeditation to commit nonconsensual violence, and (c) the threatened party couldn't reasonably escape or evade the threatened actions should the threatener decide to carry them out at that moment.

We konw, confirmed by empirical observation, that any pulling of the trigger of a loaded gun that is pointing at someone doesn't cause anyone to die, — khaled

We know that it causes them to die when it does, because the causal chain is easily peggable. We've been through this already, by the way. So I'm not going to explain it in detail to you again.

We know that it causes them to die when it does — Terrapin Station

When what "does"?

You can't possibly not be able to understand pronoun usage to that extent.

Ah sorry nevermind. I don't get why you have to be a prick about it. But no we don't know it causes them to die when it does because sometimes the trigger is pulled and the person survives

I don't get why you have to be a prick about it. — khaled

I don't like arguing. You want to argue. You're not interested enough in understanding other views to bother reading them, thinking about them, etc.

In the situation at hand, we can peg the causes. See--this is an example. I said this already.

In the situation at hand, we can peg the causes. — Terrapin Station

And if someone claims that murdering someone is causally peggable to hate speech why would they be wrong? In both cases the result isn't necessarily caused by the cause you're trying to peg it to

And if someone claims that murdering someone is causally peggable to hate speech why would they be wrong? — khaled

Show the work. Specify the causal chain. If there is one they're not wrong. But we have to be able to show the causal chain.

And you assume that would be easy to do in the case of the trigger pulling and very difficult in the case of hate speech right? What I'm showing here is that one can't dismiss "make hatespeech illegal" out of hand, because it is your assumption of what would be easy to causally peg and what wouldn't that makes you think it should be allowed. Most of the people here WOULD say that violence is causally peggable to hate speech. That's the difference you're having I think.

And you assume that would be easy to do in the case of the trigger pulling and very difficult in the case of hate speech right? — khaled

Impossible in the case of hate speech, because not only is free will the case, but as folks keep telling us in other threads, apparently we can't "explain" physicalism--mind/brain identity. If we can't do that, how would we show a causal physical chain for something like hate speech?

Most of the people here WOULD say that violence is causally peggable to hate speech. — khaled

Sure. People believe all sorts of things that are incorrect. Religious beliefs are one of the biggest examples, but there are tons of different examples.

If we can't do that, how would we show a causal physical chain for something like hate speech? — Terrapin Station

Neurology. Sounds are physical, neurolgical reactions to them are physical

Sure. People believe all sorts of things that are incorrect — Terrapin Station

Why are they incorrect. You can't say with absolute certainty that we won't one day with enough advancements in neurology be able to peg said causal chain.

Neurology. Sounds are physical, neurolgical reactions to them are physical — khaled

You'd be claiming that mind isn't involved in other words?

Why are they incorrect. — khaled

That seems like a dumb question. They get wrong what the world is like.

You'd be claiming that mind isn't involved in other words? — Terrapin Station

Yes. You can't know it is impossible to causally peg the physical sound to physical reactions

That seems like a dumb question. They get wrong what the world is like. — Terrapin Station

You seem to have completely missed the remainder of the sentence.

Yes. You can't know it is impossible to causally peg the physical sound to physical reactions — khaled

You're using "know" in the sense of certainty. It's a mistake to use it that way.

Aside from that, so in addition to needing to show the causal chain, you'd need to show that mind isn't involved now, too.

Aside from that, so in addition to needing to show the causal chain, you'd need to show that mind isn't involved now, too. — Terrapin Station

If you CAN show the causal chain then the mind isn't involved. Unless the "mind" is a literal muscle or neuron.

You're using "know" in the sense of certainty. It's a mistake to use it that way. — Terrapin Station

No I'm not but I agree it would be a mistake to use it that way.

If you CAN show the causal chain then the mind isn't involved. Unless the "mind" is a literal muscle or neuron. — khaled

The mind IS identical to a subset of brain functions, yes.

The mind IS identical to a subset of brain functions, yes. — Terrapin Station

Is this a Daniel Dennett thing?

Is this a Daniel Dennett thing? — khaled

No, not at all. Dennett arguably claims that consciousness is an "illusion" (ignoring whether that claim makes any sense).

.

I would never do any of that stuff. I'm a free speech absolutist, and that includes that I'd not make slander/libel illegal or want it socially pressured away a la firing someone, etc. — Terrapin Station

Ok, fair enough. It certainly is possible to be consistent on the issue and you seem to be. You must consider a fairly wide range of policies, laws and regulation to be wrong. Employers giving false negative references, slander and libel laws you covered, screaming 'bomb' at the airport, false reporting of crimes, lying about income to the IRS - this might be seen positively to someone who might be a libertarian in other ways - ( And presumably even at the organizational level frees speech would hold: The New York Times can print what it likes even if untrue.) Does this absolutism hold for contractual type situations? - doctors/psychologists breaching patient/doctor confidentiality, company product secrets, - and then similar situations like what would be considered perjury?

I'm a libertarian in many ways, although a socialist in other ways (mostly economic/social structure centered on economic concerns, etc.) . . . so that I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of "libertarian socialist" where I'm the only person I'm aware of with the socio-political views I have.

And yeah, I disagree with a lot of laws, mores, etc.--to a point where it's extremely frustrating to me to pay much attention to the news, which is why normally I do not, so normally I don't know much about what's going on in day-to-day politics.

I'm in favor of contractual law, but that's not a speech issue--it's a matter of actions that one is or isn't performing that one agreed to perform, and where others actions were contingent on the pledge of those actions being/not being performed.

So, bomb in the airport is ok, since people can choose whether to fall for it. I am still also on this causality issue, not just trying to corner you on free speech per se. I think causes can end up, in non-experimental situations, being statististical. IOW they blend with other causes and will, if introduced, lead to effects, ones that are even predictable, but not in all cases. And as I said above this does not necessarily mean that hate speech should be illegal even if agreed to.

So, bomb in the airport is ok, since people can choose whether to fall for it. — Coben

Yelling "bomb"? Yes, I'd not have that be illegal.

Yelling "bomb"? Yes, I'd not have that be illegal. — Terrapin Station

OK, and is this because it is approaching newtonian types of causality. IOW statistically high chance that people will behave in certain ways that we don't want them to for not reason?

The mind IS identical to a subset of brain functions, yes. — Terrapin Station

If it's a subset of physical functions and those physical functions are either deterministic or random then where is the free will? probably better on the other thread

OK, and is this because it is approaching newtonian types of causality. IOW statistically high chance that people will behave in certain ways that we don't want them to for not reason? — Coben

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