5 ms·

I think this is a balanced appraisal of the situation. Historically, US free speech has been "crazy rant" = okay, "fire!" (in a crowded room) = not okay. And

by ethbro 7y ago

I think this is a balanced appraisal of the situation. Historically, US free speech has been "crazy rant" = okay, "fire!" (in a crowded room) = not okay. And that worked, when distribution was relatively centralized with respect to network size. However, now I think we have a third category, somewhere between the previous two: "fire!" (on a widely- and easily-disseminated medium). The sheer scale of social networks makes the effect fundamentally unlike prior scenarios.

catalogia 7y ago
> "fire!" (in a crowded room) = not okay. I really wish people could find a different expression to convey what they mean by this, because what they/you mean by this is probably worlds apart from what this phrase actually meant when it was formulated. > ""Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." I think we can all agree that protesting the draft should be protected by the first amendment.
- Izkata 7y ago
  > > "fire!" (in a crowded room) = not okay. > I really wish people could find a different expression to convey what they mean by this, because what they/you mean by this is probably worlds apart from what this phrase actually meant when it was formulated. A bit yeah, right on Wikipedia [0]: > The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre. The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true. Additionally: > The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - catalogia 7y ago
    This suggests a better phrase to use: "inciting imminent lawless action" Maybe that's not as dramatic as "yelling fire in a crowded theater", but I think that's actually a good thing.
    - vehementi 7y ago
      Isn't it understood that the person yelling "fire!" is by assumption doing it falsely? The "[falsely] yelling fire in a croweded theatre" is immediately relatable by everyone and conveys the idea. What is the problem?
      - catalogia 7y ago
        Because the 'false' in "falsely yelling fire" is subjective and has its origins in the suppression of legitimate political speech.
      - smsm42 7y ago
        The problem is it conveys the wrong idea. Falsity of expression is no grounds for persecution. Moreover, the word "fire" has been yelled many, many times in many, many crowded theaters (during films, plays, concerts, etc.) without anything bad happening. The problem is that it tried to describe a very narrow situation (falsely causing panic which leads to people being hurt by making them believe there's imminent danger) by describing a much wider situation, and then making conclusions from this as if the wider situation was the narrower situation. That is exactly what happened when this phrase was first used (it was used when a person was prosecuted for speaking against the war under the guise that he's "hurting the war effort" - you can see how this trick works) - and it has been used many times after to validate persecution of speech that hurt nobody but that you could construe a byzantine logical way it could in theory hurt somebody is you really really want to believe it. And that's exactly the problem.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> The sheer scale of social networks makes the effect fundamentally unlike prior scenarios. Is this even true? There are a billion people on Facebook, but it's not like a given post ever gets seen by more than a small fraction of them. Nearly the entire human race has been reachable by postal mail for over a hundred years; the size of the network really has nothing to do with anything. What has changed isn't the size of the network, it's the culture. The CDC and a thousand independent doctors say that vaccines don't cause autism, but too many people don't believe them over the mother of a kid who both has autism and was vaccinated, even if that mother has no real evidence that one caused the other. The problem there isn't that someone is saying something which is wrong, it's that other people are too credulous of unverified claims. Nobody should believe outrageous claims from some random stranger with no domain knowledge and who is contradicted by multiple domain experts, unless they're stricken with enough curiosity to actually replicate the experiment themselves. And even then they shouldn't believe based on the word of the stranger but rather their own observations or those of someone they themselves find trustworthy. The solution isn't censorship, it's to teach people how to properly evaluate evidence instead of being credulous and easily manipulated fools.
- ip26 7y ago
  I think your parent is basically referencing the fact that you can find large groups of people who share your views, no matter what they are. Nervous about vaccines? Great, you can find literally thousands of people who affirm your fears, and you needn't even speak to anyone who doesn't. That's what's new, that's how scale changed things.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    I was thinking in terms of virality velocity as well. Using the postal reference, something may have taken a week to transmit to 100 people. Now, it takes 5 seconds. That's a fundamentally different situation, and it requires different tradeoffs in society.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago

by ethbro 7y ago

catalogia 7y ago

> "fire!" (in a crowded room) = not okay. I really wish people could find a different expression to convey what they mean by this, because what they/you mean by this is probably worlds apart from what this phrase actually meant when it was formulated. > ""Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." I think we can all agree that protesting the draft should be protected by the first amendment.

Izkata 7y ago
> > "fire!" (in a crowded room) = not okay. > I really wish people could find a different expression to convey what they mean by this, because what they/you mean by this is probably worlds apart from what this phrase actually meant when it was formulated. A bit yeah, right on Wikipedia [0]: > The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre. The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true. Additionally: > The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- catalogia 7y ago
  This suggests a better phrase to use: "inciting imminent lawless action" Maybe that's not as dramatic as "yelling fire in a crowded theater", but I think that's actually a good thing.
  - vehementi 7y ago
    Isn't it understood that the person yelling "fire!" is by assumption doing it falsely? The "[falsely] yelling fire in a croweded theatre" is immediately relatable by everyone and conveys the idea. What is the problem?
    - catalogia 7y ago
      Because the 'false' in "falsely yelling fire" is subjective and has its origins in the suppression of legitimate political speech.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      The problem is it conveys the wrong idea. Falsity of expression is no grounds for persecution. Moreover, the word "fire" has been yelled many, many times in many, many crowded theaters (during films, plays, concerts, etc.) without anything bad happening. The problem is that it tried to describe a very narrow situation (falsely causing panic which leads to people being hurt by making them believe there's imminent danger) by describing a much wider situation, and then making conclusions from this as if the wider situation was the narrower situation. That is exactly what happened when this phrase was first used (it was used when a person was prosecuted for speaking against the war under the guise that he's "hurting the war effort" - you can see how this trick works) - and it has been used many times after to validate persecution of speech that hurt nobody but that you could construe a byzantine logical way it could in theory hurt somebody is you really really want to believe it. And that's exactly the problem.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> The sheer scale of social networks makes the effect fundamentally unlike prior scenarios. Is this even true? There are a billion people on Facebook, but it's not like a given post ever gets seen by more than a small fraction of them. Nearly the entire human race has been reachable by postal mail for over a hundred years; the size of the network really has nothing to do with anything. What has changed isn't the size of the network, it's the culture. The CDC and a thousand independent doctors say that vaccines don't cause autism, but too many people don't believe them over the mother of a kid who both has autism and was vaccinated, even if that mother has no real evidence that one caused the other. The problem there isn't that someone is saying something which is wrong, it's that other people are too credulous of unverified claims. Nobody should believe outrageous claims from some random stranger with no domain knowledge and who is contradicted by multiple domain experts, unless they're stricken with enough curiosity to actually replicate the experiment themselves. And even then they shouldn't believe based on the word of the stranger but rather their own observations or those of someone they themselves find trustworthy. The solution isn't censorship, it's to teach people how to properly evaluate evidence instead of being credulous and easily manipulated fools.

ip26 7y ago
I think your parent is basically referencing the fact that you can find large groups of people who share your views, no matter what they are. Nervous about vaccines? Great, you can find literally thousands of people who affirm your fears, and you needn't even speak to anyone who doesn't. That's what's new, that's how scale changed things.
- ethbro 7y ago
  I was thinking in terms of virality velocity as well. Using the postal reference, something may have taken a week to transmit to 100 people. Now, it takes 5 seconds. That's a fundamentally different situation, and it requires different tradeoffs in society.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago