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
'Grybhshalabhagbh'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
I think causality is more complicated than that. Or broader.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
Could it never be the case that you would blame him for consequences? — Coben
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
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
Do you think death threats/threats of physical violence/extortion should be legal? — RogueAI
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
I don't get why you have to be a prick about it. — khaled
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? — khaled
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
Most of the people here WOULD say that violence is causally peggable to hate speech. — khaled
If we can't do that, how would we show a causal physical chain for something like hate speech? — Terrapin Station
Sure. People believe all sorts of things that are incorrect — Terrapin Station
You'd be claiming that mind isn't involved in other words? — Terrapin Station
That seems like a dumb question. They get wrong what the world is like. — Terrapin Station
Yes. You can't know it is impossible to causally peg the physical sound to physical reactions — khaled
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
You're using "know" in the sense of certainty. It's a mistake to use it that way. — Terrapin Station
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. — Terrapin Station
Is this a Daniel Dennett thing? — khaled
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 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
So, bomb in the airport is ok, since people can choose whether to fall for it. — Coben
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?Yelling "bomb"? Yes, I'd not have that be illegal. — Terrapin Station
The mind IS identical to a subset of brain functions, yes. — 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? — Coben
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.