5 ms·

> There are no sounds that I can make with my mouth that are dangerous. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre that could lead to a stampede that puts people in da

> There are no sounds that I can make with my mouth that are dangerous. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre that could lead to a stampede that puts people in danger. Deliberately misinforming people about the risk of an action they are about to take could be too.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
This reply already gives too much credit to the original claim. The acoustic vibrations generated by mouth sounds could physically cause damage, like an opera singer breaking glass, or shouting next to a microphone.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  This is an unrelated and poor interpretation of the claim.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    After re-reading and self-reflecting, I do not agree. The original claim is about defining certain actions as intrinsically not side-effectful (no sounds can themselves be dangerous), but actions having side-effects cannot be considered in isolation of the physical and social circumstances they are embedded in, which can require restricting an action. I think my reply really adequately responds to the core intent of the original comment. I’d also like to point out that your reply is not helpful. Merely gainsaying something is not useful or informative.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Bringing up opera singers breaking glass as an example of sound vibrations physically hurting people is just not useful in a conversation about freedom of speech because it’s a nitpicky convoluted example that is not a great thing to bring up when you’re trying to redefine the claim so that you could rebut it. (Note that I am specifically talking about the example you brought to to support your interpretation of the claim. I’m fine with your speculation that the claim literally meant something along the lines of “sticks and stones can break my bones” rather than “free speech has never had adverse consequences”. It just didn’t need your qualification. I do appreciate the self-reflection, though.)
    - zentiggr 7y ago
      I'd argue that the orignal sentence was using 'sounds' a bit symbolically, so the clearer interpretations would be closer to "there are no communications I can utter that are dangerous". His point being about the critical thinking on the part of the listener, not about the physics of making actual sounds.
      - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        A communication costs energy to transmit. It cannot be decoupled from physical circumstance. But it’s beside the point. The communication is still embedded in a context of the situation it’s in. If you utter a communication to an insane person, the side effect might be that you are stabbed. You as the person uttering it must take responsibility for what neurophysical response in the mind of the listener might result. If you emit communications, there can be consequences which are causal. Not strictly the volitional responsibility of the listener.
poke111 7y ago
I hate when people use this metaphor. Not because it's inaccurate to say that speech can cause imminent harm in some circumstances. But because its origin was a Supreme Court opinion that argued against the right to speak out against the draft in WW1, which I don't think too many people using this analogy today would agree with. Also, this legal argument has been rejected since then. Point is, this exact argument could be (and has been) used to justify some pretty bad ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

This reply already gives too much credit to the original claim. The acoustic vibrations generated by mouth sounds could physically cause damage, like an opera singer breaking glass, or shouting next to a microphone.

saagarjha 7y ago
This is an unrelated and poor interpretation of the claim.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  After re-reading and self-reflecting, I do not agree. The original claim is about defining certain actions as intrinsically not side-effectful (no sounds can themselves be dangerous), but actions having side-effects cannot be considered in isolation of the physical and social circumstances they are embedded in, which can require restricting an action. I think my reply really adequately responds to the core intent of the original comment. I’d also like to point out that your reply is not helpful. Merely gainsaying something is not useful or informative.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Bringing up opera singers breaking glass as an example of sound vibrations physically hurting people is just not useful in a conversation about freedom of speech because it’s a nitpicky convoluted example that is not a great thing to bring up when you’re trying to redefine the claim so that you could rebut it. (Note that I am specifically talking about the example you brought to to support your interpretation of the claim. I’m fine with your speculation that the claim literally meant something along the lines of “sticks and stones can break my bones” rather than “free speech has never had adverse consequences”. It just didn’t need your qualification. I do appreciate the self-reflection, though.)
  - zentiggr 7y ago
    I'd argue that the orignal sentence was using 'sounds' a bit symbolically, so the clearer interpretations would be closer to "there are no communications I can utter that are dangerous". His point being about the critical thinking on the part of the listener, not about the physics of making actual sounds.
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      A communication costs energy to transmit. It cannot be decoupled from physical circumstance. But it’s beside the point. The communication is still embedded in a context of the situation it’s in. If you utter a communication to an insane person, the side effect might be that you are stabbed. You as the person uttering it must take responsibility for what neurophysical response in the mind of the listener might result. If you emit communications, there can be consequences which are causal. Not strictly the volitional responsibility of the listener.

poke111 7y ago

I hate when people use this metaphor. Not because it's inaccurate to say that speech can cause imminent harm in some circumstances. But because its origin was a Supreme Court opinion that argued against the right to speak out against the draft in WW1, which I don't think too many people using this analogy today would agree with. Also, this legal argument has been rejected since then. Point is, this exact argument could be (and has been) used to justify some pretty bad ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...