7 ms·

Does it really matter what the ideas of some small group (as far as I know ineffectual) thinks or writes? How can their ideas/speech be more dangerous than lim

by dfps 9y ago

Does it really matter what the ideas of some small group (as far as I know ineffectual) thinks or writes? How can their ideas/speech be more dangerous than limitations of speech on the web?

drewbuschhorn 9y ago
I think you're confusing the sign for the signified. Is there any speech you'd consider more dangerous than limiting freedom of speech on the web?
- dfps 9y ago
  I can't think of any speech that it would do less harm to limit than the limitation would do. Can you? If you can, I will give a fair effort to CMV.
  - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
    Ha, if you're that sure I doubt I could dissuade you. You might try the millions of other people out there cleverer than me who are willing to it give it go. But ask yourself, if you're that sure, what's your evidence? I 'd need some strong evidence I was on the right side to hold that absolutist of a belief.
  - TheDong 9y ago
    The classic example is someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. The reason that "free speech" is limited is that limiting it does almost no harm, and allowing it can result in human death. This actually follows well into the specific example of racist nazi propaganda. The argument is fairly similar; allowing that speech has the chance to, in a more roundabout way, result in human oppression and death. Limiting it isn't great (especially since it often draws some amount of attention to it), but it does seem plausible that by stopping that speech from getting out there, there's less chance of such a movement forming.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... There should not be limitations on speech. By your logic we should limit speech on engineering and communism as they also have potential for harming people.
      - TheDong 9y ago
        The big difference is intent. Nazis / hate-speech intends to harm people. They are advocating for such harm. Engineering and communism typically don't, though where they do it should be shut down.
    - dfps 9y ago
      I can't explain where the line is for the difference between saying that word at that time (although I suspect some lawyers might). I can see there would be a big difference though in yelping a word in that situation and being directly responsible for the harm it caused (mischief maybe?) and expressing a person's ideas and beliefs. The analogy you put doesn't work out, unfortunately, because ANY idea can result in human oppression and death. For example, the speech that civil rights leaders spoke and wrote that in a roundabout way caused injuries and deaths at protests motivated by them, the speech that fired up the American Revolution and other revolutions.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The classic example is someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's an example from dicta illustrating the logic of a case since overruled as stating an improperly narrow view of free speech.
  - adbge 9y ago
    You might enjoy Bostrom's paper on information hazards: https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf
    - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
      Nice! I had seen quotes from this, but didn't know where it came from originally. > It may be worth stressing, however, that even if one has an extremely strong intellectual commitment to truthseeking and public education, one can still legitimately and in good conscience explore the question of how some knowledge might be harmful. In fact, this very commitment demands that one does not shy away from such an exploration or from reporting openly on the findings.
  - geofft 9y ago
    A straightforward one, which I think has been well-accepted in Western legal thinking for centuries, is slander/libel. If I go around saying "Look, 'dfps is a Nazi," you can get the courts, and if necessary the government's monopoly on violence, to stop me. Another one that's extremely common is use of a trademark. I do not have a free speech right to say "I provide Microsoft-certified computer repair services." We believe there's more harm to society from me going around causing people to believe that than from me being unable to say that. Another one is unauthorized practice of law. I do not have a free speech right to say "I know how the GPL works and I can represent you in court." We believe it's more important to a free society that when someone says that, they're actually a trained and licensed lawyer who can competently represent you, and that the harm to you from me going in front of a judge and spouting nonsense on your behalf outweighs the harm from me being unable to speak freely about the GPL. Do you think that these restrictions on free speech are more harmful than the cases they seek to prevent?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

by dfps 9y ago

Does it really matter what the ideas of some small group (as far as I know ineffectual) thinks or writes? How can their ideas/speech be more dangerous than limitations of speech on the web?

drewbuschhorn 9y ago

I think you're confusing the sign for the signified. Is there any speech you'd consider more dangerous than limiting freedom of speech on the web?

dfps 9y ago
I can't think of any speech that it would do less harm to limit than the limitation would do. Can you? If you can, I will give a fair effort to CMV.
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  Ha, if you're that sure I doubt I could dissuade you. You might try the millions of other people out there cleverer than me who are willing to it give it go. But ask yourself, if you're that sure, what's your evidence? I 'd need some strong evidence I was on the right side to hold that absolutist of a belief.
- TheDong 9y ago
  The classic example is someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. The reason that "free speech" is limited is that limiting it does almost no harm, and allowing it can result in human death. This actually follows well into the specific example of racist nazi propaganda. The argument is fairly similar; allowing that speech has the chance to, in a more roundabout way, result in human oppression and death. Limiting it isn't great (especially since it often draws some amount of attention to it), but it does seem plausible that by stopping that speech from getting out there, there's less chance of such a movement forming.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... There should not be limitations on speech. By your logic we should limit speech on engineering and communism as they also have potential for harming people.
    - TheDong 9y ago
      The big difference is intent. Nazis / hate-speech intends to harm people. They are advocating for such harm. Engineering and communism typically don't, though where they do it should be shut down.
  - dfps 9y ago
    I can't explain where the line is for the difference between saying that word at that time (although I suspect some lawyers might). I can see there would be a big difference though in yelping a word in that situation and being directly responsible for the harm it caused (mischief maybe?) and expressing a person's ideas and beliefs. The analogy you put doesn't work out, unfortunately, because ANY idea can result in human oppression and death. For example, the speech that civil rights leaders spoke and wrote that in a roundabout way caused injuries and deaths at protests motivated by them, the speech that fired up the American Revolution and other revolutions.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The classic example is someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's an example from dicta illustrating the logic of a case since overruled as stating an improperly narrow view of free speech.
- adbge 9y ago
  You might enjoy Bostrom's paper on information hazards: https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf
  - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
    Nice! I had seen quotes from this, but didn't know where it came from originally. > It may be worth stressing, however, that even if one has an extremely strong intellectual commitment to truthseeking and public education, one can still legitimately and in good conscience explore the question of how some knowledge might be harmful. In fact, this very commitment demands that one does not shy away from such an exploration or from reporting openly on the findings.
- geofft 9y ago
  A straightforward one, which I think has been well-accepted in Western legal thinking for centuries, is slander/libel. If I go around saying "Look, 'dfps is a Nazi," you can get the courts, and if necessary the government's monopoly on violence, to stop me. Another one that's extremely common is use of a trademark. I do not have a free speech right to say "I provide Microsoft-certified computer repair services." We believe there's more harm to society from me going around causing people to believe that than from me being unable to say that. Another one is unauthorized practice of law. I do not have a free speech right to say "I know how the GPL works and I can represent you in court." We believe it's more important to a free society that when someone says that, they're actually a trained and licensed lawyer who can competently represent you, and that the harm to you from me going in front of a judge and spouting nonsense on your behalf outweighs the harm from me being unable to speak freely about the GPL. Do you think that these restrictions on free speech are more harmful than the cases they seek to prevent?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]