3 ms·

That's one interpretation. Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.

pdonis 6y ago
Coercion and fraud are not speech. More generally, verbal statements that are part of other actions, such as negotiations for a market transaction, are not speech. The whole point of "speech" is that it is just expressing the beliefs or opinions of the speaker.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Speech is almost always purposeful, and when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process, ie, how things are done. Not that I disagree that speech should be free, but I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Depends on what you mean by "ulterior motive". If it's just speech, it is an expression of belief or opinion, as I said, and that is all it is. Everyone who hears it can judge it for themselves solely as an expression of belief or opinion. If it's a belief or opinion about public policy, any honest motive for expressing it will be part of the speech itself, so it won't be an "ulterior" motive in the sense of being hidden. If it is not evident what a person's motives are for expressing a belief or opinion about public policy, any sane hearer will take that fact into account when judging the speech. If the hearer is not being given the freedom to make such judgments, then we're not talking about speech any more, we're talking about coercion or fraud. > when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process No, it's an action intended to influence other people--but whether it does or not depends on the merits of what is said. Speech by itself can't change the political process; that requires changing the Constitution or laws. > I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism. I think it is absurd and lacks realism to refuse to recognize the distinction between speech and action. The whole point of having the category "speech" at all is to force people to accept the reality that, if you want to live in a free country, you have to be enough of a mature adult to be able to tolerate people expressing beliefs that you think are false and opinions that you abhor. In a free country, the proper response to speech you think is wrong is more speech to refute or rebut the speech you think is wrong. Once the idea takes hold that it's okay to suppress people just because they say things you think are wrong, we no longer have a free country. Talk about "ulterior motives" is really just another way of suppressing people who say things you think are wrong.

pdonis 6y ago

Coercion and fraud are not speech. More generally, verbal statements that are part of other actions, such as negotiations for a market transaction, are not speech. The whole point of "speech" is that it is just expressing the beliefs or opinions of the speaker.

sudosysgen 6y ago
One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Speech is almost always purposeful, and when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process, ie, how things are done. Not that I disagree that speech should be free, but I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Depends on what you mean by "ulterior motive". If it's just speech, it is an expression of belief or opinion, as I said, and that is all it is. Everyone who hears it can judge it for themselves solely as an expression of belief or opinion. If it's a belief or opinion about public policy, any honest motive for expressing it will be part of the speech itself, so it won't be an "ulterior" motive in the sense of being hidden. If it is not evident what a person's motives are for expressing a belief or opinion about public policy, any sane hearer will take that fact into account when judging the speech. If the hearer is not being given the freedom to make such judgments, then we're not talking about speech any more, we're talking about coercion or fraud. > when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process No, it's an action intended to influence other people--but whether it does or not depends on the merits of what is said. Speech by itself can't change the political process; that requires changing the Constitution or laws. > I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism. I think it is absurd and lacks realism to refuse to recognize the distinction between speech and action. The whole point of having the category "speech" at all is to force people to accept the reality that, if you want to live in a free country, you have to be enough of a mature adult to be able to tolerate people expressing beliefs that you think are false and opinions that you abhor. In a free country, the proper response to speech you think is wrong is more speech to refute or rebut the speech you think is wrong. Once the idea takes hold that it's okay to suppress people just because they say things you think are wrong, we no longer have a free country. Talk about "ulterior motives" is really just another way of suppressing people who say things you think are wrong.