3 ms·

I don't see why you think that one shouldn't be able to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and be prosecuted accordingly for inciting a riot and damage to the p

I don't see why you think that one shouldn't be able to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and be prosecuted accordingly for inciting a riot and damage to the property if such were the case (but not for the speech itself). The problem with your position, is since we aren't dealing with 'what did happen' but with 'what could have happened' it becomes an ambiguous and potentially abusive provision - highly subjective to personal biases.

stinkytaco 10y ago
But it is a position that we apply all the time in a complex society. We have speed limits which we enforce because higher speeds could lead to an accident. We have building codes because shoddy construction practices could lead to a fire. We have vaccination requirements because a lack of them could lead to an outbreak. These are all laws meant to protect us from each other. I suppose you could argue with any of these on principle, but it's a pretty standard part of our social contract now. I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. We have to own cars to buy groceries, go to work and raise our kids because neighborhood grocery stores and schools are no more. We can't all be expected to be experts on HVAC and electrical because we've spent the totality of our existence in highly specialized training for whatever it is we do. We live in an incredibly close quarters society, and history has shown us that vaccinations are almost a must. Making laws based on what could happen just seems like common sense given these realities.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > But it is a bias that we apply all the time in a complex society. We have speed limits which we enforce because higher speeds could lead to an accident. Yes - but we also don't have an amendment which says: "Congress shall make no law abridging my right to drive fast" Preservation of free-speech is specially important in a way that the speed-limit on the highway is not. So I would say these aren't analogous applications of bias. > I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. We have to own cars to buy groceries, go to work and raise our kids because neighborhood grocery stores and schools are no more. We can't all be expected to be experts on HVAC and electrical because we've spent the totality of our existence in highly specialized training for whatever it is we do. We live in an incredibly close quarters society, and history has shown us that vaccinations are almost a must. Making laws based on what could happen just seems like common sense given these realities. You could also go further e.g. "I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. Anti-vaccination speech should be outlawed, the practicants of such speech are a menace to public health, their children and others children." Putting speech into the category of acceptable bias without effect, is a dangerous path..
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    That's a fair enough point, but I think most would agree that the constitution doesn't always keep up with the times. This leads to our constant interpretation and reinvention of it (see the conflicting decisions of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education). I don't think it's perfect, but I would also argue that it's not dangerous, in fact it's necessary. Indeed, laws like trademark and truth in advertising are exactly what you are suggesting could happen. They are laws that protect consumers from potential harm created by false claims. It's not a limitation on political speech, but fact. I don't think anti-vaccination speech being illegal is actually too terribly unreasonable. I guess in my day to day existence I would rather live in a culture where I'm generally protected from potential harms so I can go about my day with less worry. Could those limitations reach a point where I find them unreasonable? Surely they have and surely it has happened in the history of the United States, but I think it's a testament to the culture and its institutions that we've rebalanced when we've gone too far one direction.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      > I don't think anti-vaccination speech being illegal is actually too terribly unreasonable. That would let you ban publication of a rigorous, well-done study that found actual harm from some vaccinations. That is not a good path to be on.
      - stinkytaco 10y ago
        Perhaps I didn't phrase it well. I should say "unsubstantiated and speculative anti-vaccination speech". If you've got a study that is generally accepted by the medical community, that's one thing. Going on Oprah or taking out ads in magazines is another entirely.
        Sacho 10y ago
        > If you've got a study that is generally accepted by the medical community If you want to get unsubstantiated and speculative anti-vaccination speech outlawed, you need to convince a majority of people to do it. In such a case, it seems likely that the medical community would also contain a majority convinced of the worthlessness of anti-vaccination speech, thus relying on them to substantiate it would be pointless. In general, what you're describing is tyranny of the majority that a constitution is meant to prevent. Even if we had the omniscience to determine that vaccinations are now perfectly safe and give brilliant results, outlawing speech against them makes them a protected category, which is ripe for abuse. The argument will shift from pro/anti vaccination to "this is not a real vaccination", subverting whatever your intention of outlawing the speech was. Meanwhile, the things billed under 'vaccination' will slowly morph as time advances, as people fight to classify more and more medicine under it, to protect their drugs from criticism. This is exactly the thing that happens already under every exception to the First Amendment in the US, and why courts would repeatedly narrow down each exception, refusing to expand it further. Are you prepared to add this to the list of things to be eternally vigilant about? How confident are you that the courts will continue to defend narrow limitations when given an ever-growing list of them? Most importantly, do you think your new law will have any useful effect, given that people are notoriously good at subverting narrowly-crafted censorship, and broad censorship always has unintentional side-effects?

stinkytaco 10y ago

But it is a position that we apply all the time in a complex society. We have speed limits which we enforce because higher speeds could lead to an accident. We have building codes because shoddy construction practices could lead to a fire. We have vaccination requirements because a lack of them could lead to an outbreak. These are all laws meant to protect us from each other. I suppose you could argue with any of these on principle, but it's a pretty standard part of our social contract now. I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. We have to own cars to buy groceries, go to work and raise our kids because neighborhood grocery stores and schools are no more. We can't all be expected to be experts on HVAC and electrical because we've spent the totality of our existence in highly specialized training for whatever it is we do. We live in an incredibly close quarters society, and history has shown us that vaccinations are almost a must. Making laws based on what could happen just seems like common sense given these realities.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> But it is a bias that we apply all the time in a complex society. We have speed limits which we enforce because higher speeds could lead to an accident. Yes - but we also don't have an amendment which says: "Congress shall make no law abridging my right to drive fast" Preservation of free-speech is specially important in a way that the speed-limit on the highway is not. So I would say these aren't analogous applications of bias. > I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. We have to own cars to buy groceries, go to work and raise our kids because neighborhood grocery stores and schools are no more. We can't all be expected to be experts on HVAC and electrical because we've spent the totality of our existence in highly specialized training for whatever it is we do. We live in an incredibly close quarters society, and history has shown us that vaccinations are almost a must. Making laws based on what could happen just seems like common sense given these realities. You could also go further e.g. "I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. Anti-vaccination speech should be outlawed, the practicants of such speech are a menace to public health, their children and others children." Putting speech into the category of acceptable bias without effect, is a dangerous path..
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  That's a fair enough point, but I think most would agree that the constitution doesn't always keep up with the times. This leads to our constant interpretation and reinvention of it (see the conflicting decisions of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education). I don't think it's perfect, but I would also argue that it's not dangerous, in fact it's necessary. Indeed, laws like trademark and truth in advertising are exactly what you are suggesting could happen. They are laws that protect consumers from potential harm created by false claims. It's not a limitation on political speech, but fact. I don't think anti-vaccination speech being illegal is actually too terribly unreasonable. I guess in my day to day existence I would rather live in a culture where I'm generally protected from potential harms so I can go about my day with less worry. Could those limitations reach a point where I find them unreasonable? Surely they have and surely it has happened in the history of the United States, but I think it's a testament to the culture and its institutions that we've rebalanced when we've gone too far one direction.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > I don't think anti-vaccination speech being illegal is actually too terribly unreasonable. That would let you ban publication of a rigorous, well-done study that found actual harm from some vaccinations. That is not a good path to be on.
    - stinkytaco 10y ago
      Perhaps I didn't phrase it well. I should say "unsubstantiated and speculative anti-vaccination speech". If you've got a study that is generally accepted by the medical community, that's one thing. Going on Oprah or taking out ads in magazines is another entirely.
      - Sacho 10y ago
        > If you've got a study that is generally accepted by the medical community If you want to get unsubstantiated and speculative anti-vaccination speech outlawed, you need to convince a majority of people to do it. In such a case, it seems likely that the medical community would also contain a majority convinced of the worthlessness of anti-vaccination speech, thus relying on them to substantiate it would be pointless. In general, what you're describing is tyranny of the majority that a constitution is meant to prevent. Even if we had the omniscience to determine that vaccinations are now perfectly safe and give brilliant results, outlawing speech against them makes them a protected category, which is ripe for abuse. The argument will shift from pro/anti vaccination to "this is not a real vaccination", subverting whatever your intention of outlawing the speech was. Meanwhile, the things billed under 'vaccination' will slowly morph as time advances, as people fight to classify more and more medicine under it, to protect their drugs from criticism. This is exactly the thing that happens already under every exception to the First Amendment in the US, and why courts would repeatedly narrow down each exception, refusing to expand it further. Are you prepared to add this to the list of things to be eternally vigilant about? How confident are you that the courts will continue to defend narrow limitations when given an ever-growing list of them? Most importantly, do you think your new law will have any useful effect, given that people are notoriously good at subverting narrowly-crafted censorship, and broad censorship always has unintentional side-effects?