3 ms·

This is a legalistic take on causality. I agree in legal terms. It's not belief in human sacrifice, or joining in a religion that does human sacrifice that shou

This is a legalistic take on causality. I agree in legal terms. It's not belief in human sacrifice, or joining in a religion that does human sacrifice that should be illegal. These can't be illegal if we want to have freedom of religion. That said, the relationship between cult beliefs and cult practices is not "loose" at all. The "Peoples Temple" religion did result in a mass suicide. 19th century rumours about Jews sacrificing children in eastern europe did lead to mass murders. Rumours did lead to lynchings in the south. Neither speech nor religion are harmless. If your standard of harm is "harming other people or their property," I'm sure we can find examples of speech, religion, and other freedoms which have led to these harms. That's the whole point of a right. A, the reason it is worth protecting, and requires it is because these things are powerful. B, the whole idea is that we defend against harm without losing those rights. We work around the rights. It's just simply not true that freedom of association (or any other freedom) can't and won't lead to harm. It can and it will.

nybble41 6y ago
> If your standard of harm is "harming other people or their property," I'm sure we can find examples of speech, religion, and other freedoms which have led to these harms. As I said, you seem to have a very loose concept of causality. To me, led to is very different from caused. That difference comes down to choice. Speech may influence someone to act in a certain manner, but it doesn't cause them to act that way—they have to choose to act, and in doing so take full responsibility for the consequences. Their choice serves as a break in the chain of liability; the speaker is not responsible (punishable) for what others may choose to do after hearing them speak. Even if the speaker is directly calling for specific actions, the responsibility lies entirely with those who make the choice to act on that speech. The harm is not in the speech, but rather in the action. We have these freedoms because they do not and cannot cause harm, in and of themselves, which in turn implies that harm (again, bodily injury or loss/destruction of property—any sort of legally-mandated punishment) is not a proportional response no matter how much one may dislike the speech or beliefs, respectively, or how concerned one might be for the influence they may eventually have on other people's choices.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  You can make this argument at various levels: "Speech may influence someone to act in a certain manner, but it doesn't cause them to act that way—they have to choose to act, and in doing so take full responsibility for the consequences." Replace "speech" with "bribery" or a mafia boss giving an order to commit a crime. Causality, in the sense that you're using it, is legalistic. In practice, the Jonestown religion/cult, it's beliefs, and membership did cause a mass suicide and murder. That obviously doesn't absolve anyone of anything, but you can't exonerate the religion on a philosophical technicality. Religion is a right. That does not mean that it is harmless, powerless or unrelated to causality. Speech is just the same. Voting too. Powerful. Dangerous. If you believe that free speech needs to be protected because it causes no harm... that's the road to losing it, because it's premised on a demonstrable untruth.

nybble41 6y ago

> If your standard of harm is "harming other people or their property," I'm sure we can find examples of speech, religion, and other freedoms which have led to these harms. As I said, you seem to have a very loose concept of causality. To me, led to is very different from caused. That difference comes down to choice. Speech may influence someone to act in a certain manner, but it doesn't cause them to act that way—they have to choose to act, and in doing so take full responsibility for the consequences. Their choice serves as a break in the chain of liability; the speaker is not responsible (punishable) for what others may choose to do after hearing them speak. Even if the speaker is directly calling for specific actions, the responsibility lies entirely with those who make the choice to act on that speech. The harm is not in the speech, but rather in the action. We have these freedoms because they do not and cannot cause harm, in and of themselves, which in turn implies that harm (again, bodily injury or loss/destruction of property—any sort of legally-mandated punishment) is not a proportional response no matter how much one may dislike the speech or beliefs, respectively, or how concerned one might be for the influence they may eventually have on other people's choices.

dalbasal 6y ago
You can make this argument at various levels: "Speech may influence someone to act in a certain manner, but it doesn't cause them to act that way—they have to choose to act, and in doing so take full responsibility for the consequences." Replace "speech" with "bribery" or a mafia boss giving an order to commit a crime. Causality, in the sense that you're using it, is legalistic. In practice, the Jonestown religion/cult, it's beliefs, and membership did cause a mass suicide and murder. That obviously doesn't absolve anyone of anything, but you can't exonerate the religion on a philosophical technicality. Religion is a right. That does not mean that it is harmless, powerless or unrelated to causality. Speech is just the same. Voting too. Powerful. Dangerous. If you believe that free speech needs to be protected because it causes no harm... that's the road to losing it, because it's premised on a demonstrable untruth.