2 ms·

If you print lies you harm your reputation and people stop believing you. Look at MSM in US. Nothing beyond that is required. To me this phrase, to “say someth

by deno 8y ago

If you print lies you harm your reputation and people stop believing you. Look at MSM in US. Nothing beyond that is required. To me this phrase, to “say something illegal”, is absurd. There is no magic word that you can say or write that would harm anyone else, and as such any law that would make any kind of speech illegal must therefore be unjust. The canonical example against that is of course of yelling fire! in a crowded theater. However I do not see it as an example of forbidden or illegal speech, as the actual idea of a fire is not the issue here, but rather it is the ACT of yelling the word that is the problem. After all, a painting or a movie of someone doing exactly that should not be illegal. Or in other words it is not an issue of speech but rather of speaking.

harperlee 8y ago
So then saying things should not be illegal because it is absurd, but the act of communication (e.g. "fire!") can be illegal because it can have an effect?
- deno 8y ago
  In a perfect world, I would limit the way speech can have consequences (at least as legislation goes) only to things that cause actual immediate harm. Which covers the fire thing. Now, we don’t of course live in a perfect world. There are other acts of speech that can have dire consequences and should be deterred. Probably the most obvious topical example is a false rape accusation. In a perfect world such claims would be outright ignored without any evidence, however as it doesn’t seem to be the case there should be some recourse for the accused. At the same time you need to balance this with the chilling effect this will have on the speech. To this extent this is not a black & white issue, as nothing ever is. Nevertheless all of this deals with liability, not censorship, and as such is transparent and can be limited. There is no case for censorship under any circumstance whatsoever. So as to act vs speech to me this is the distinction. Murder is illegal, but we don’t censor it. Accusing someone of something or yelling is similarly an active thing, however the actual information should never be limited. There is certain conflation here of speech in abstract and the act of expression of speech, however I think there is a distinction and it is important. There is also in my mind no overlap with “hate speech.” Yelling fire is very context specific, and an accusation directed at someone similarly deals with actual person or persons, this is why such exceptions are justified. Most examples of “hate speech” are often general statements that do not deal with specific persons, but rather with ideas. As such there is no “act” of speech, only speech.

by deno 8y ago

harperlee 8y ago

So then saying things should not be illegal because it is absurd, but the act of communication (e.g. "fire!") can be illegal because it can have an effect?

deno 8y ago
In a perfect world, I would limit the way speech can have consequences (at least as legislation goes) only to things that cause actual immediate harm. Which covers the fire thing. Now, we don’t of course live in a perfect world. There are other acts of speech that can have dire consequences and should be deterred. Probably the most obvious topical example is a false rape accusation. In a perfect world such claims would be outright ignored without any evidence, however as it doesn’t seem to be the case there should be some recourse for the accused. At the same time you need to balance this with the chilling effect this will have on the speech. To this extent this is not a black & white issue, as nothing ever is. Nevertheless all of this deals with liability, not censorship, and as such is transparent and can be limited. There is no case for censorship under any circumstance whatsoever. So as to act vs speech to me this is the distinction. Murder is illegal, but we don’t censor it. Accusing someone of something or yelling is similarly an active thing, however the actual information should never be limited. There is certain conflation here of speech in abstract and the act of expression of speech, however I think there is a distinction and it is important. There is also in my mind no overlap with “hate speech.” Yelling fire is very context specific, and an accusation directed at someone similarly deals with actual person or persons, this is why such exceptions are justified. Most examples of “hate speech” are often general statements that do not deal with specific persons, but rather with ideas. As such there is no “act” of speech, only speech.