5 ms·

If someone yells FIRE without a real FIRE in a crowded town hall that causes a stampede resulting in death or injury - I guess it is ground for bringing crimina

If someone yells FIRE without a real FIRE in a crowded town hall that causes a stampede resulting in death or injury - I guess it is ground for bringing criminal charges against the original yeller. I don’t see what is so hard to understand here. We already have the legal clarity , they just needs to be implemented diligently.

musingsole 4y ago
> I don’t see what is so hard to understand here. We already have the legal clarity , they just needs to be implemented diligently. Then read between the lines and recognize the public in general has moved away from recognition/acceptance of the rules as written and now all the mobs are demanding speech they don't like be restricted by powers on high.
nickff 4y ago
The hypothetical you're using has a long and troubled history, if you're in favor of restrictions on speech, I suggest you use a different one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- runnerup 4y ago
  Any suggestions to help steel-man this?
  - janalsncm 4y ago
    The current legal standard for 1A protection is “imminent lawless action” from Brandenburg v Ohio. Shouting fire is from an old standard “clear and present danger”. You can look at their respective wiki pages for details and definitions. The history of Free Speech in the US is pretty interesting. The kinds of things that are acceptable today would get you thrown in prison 100 years ago (for example, handing out anti war pamphlets) and are more akin to the kinds of things Americans look down on other countries for criminalizing.
    - la64710 4y ago
      Nothing is set on stone and to accommodate changing times and values there should be a reasonable pathway to change.
- foldr 4y ago
  I’d like to see some better sourcing for this. The Wikipedia article, bizarrely, claims that shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre (and thereby causing a stampede or some other awful consequence) is actually protected by the First Amendment in the US. However, the only source it gives for this claim is a Reason article. Edit: See here for a more nuanced perspective: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-... Shouting “Bomb!” or “Gun!” in public would put you in a similar situation. In May 2018, for example, officials had to evacuate part of Daytona Beach International Airport after a man ran naked through the building screaming about a bomb in the women’s bathroom. There was no bomb, but he was charged with “false report of a bomb,” “criminal mischief,” and “exposure of sexual organs,” among other things. In that case, no self-respecting lawyer would advise him to claim his actions were protected by the First Amendment.
  - johng 4y ago
    The speech is protected but you are not protected from the consequences it causes if you use it wrongly.
    - foldr 4y ago
      Yes - that is exactly the point of the analogy. Compare for example political speech, which can also have terrible consequences, but where it would be an obvious violation of the First Amendment to (e.g.) prosecute an economist for the terrible consequences of their economic ideas.
    - SkyBelow 4y ago
      What does it mean for speech to be protected if not meaning to be protected from the consequences? Could I not say one is free to murder but one is not protected from the consequences of murder? I think we can break down government and non-government consequences, but given the previous discussions in the chain were on legality I think the discussion is already focused on government consequences. As a side note I think the non-government consequences can then be broken down further to legal and illegal actions, with the idea the only consequences you aren't protected from are the legal non-government consequences.
- la64710 4y ago
  Ok fine I rephrase : If someone *falsely* yells FIRE without a real FIRE in a crowded town hall that causes a stampede resulting in death or injury - I guess it is ground for bringing criminal charges against the original yeller. But my point is since it is clearly defined legally do we have to really over analyze it to the point of inducing paralysis?
  - jjcc 4y ago
    You are still discussing in a hypothetical situation that most people can have a consensus about the information eventually. i.e. the information (If the FIRE really happened or not) can be falsified. What really caused conflicts and damage are the situations the "lies" cannot be falsified (just in current population due the the limit of intelligence, no necessary for smart people in future generations), and the yeller is not a typical liar but belong to a special specie (majority of politicians who have good skill in elections) that totally believe their lies so there's no legal ground base to charge them. There have been already a lot of damaging consequences and seems continue to have more because of this. Do we have reverse yellers yelling "NO FIRE" to balance the ongoing damages? The are very few for some important issues. There's no way to counter balance. Why? It's not because there are less people know the truth. In real world it's not a clear cut model that information can be passed back and forth independently between a yeller and audience. The misinformation exists because there are eager misinformation consumers. There are a very large portion of people need the yelling of "FIRE" and hence there are more "FIRE" yellers. This is another discrepancy between your model and real world.
    - la64710 4y ago
      > and the yeller is not a typical liar but belong to a special specie (majority of politicians who have good skill in elections) that totally believe their lies so there's no legal ground base to charge them. There have been already a lot of damaging consequences and seems continue to have more because of this. - If it is damaging yet done repeatedly obviously it is wrong. Things may not be clear the first time but soon becomes clearer. And if the yeller claim to not know the consequences they better not say something until they collect and analyze more data.
billiam 4y ago
Um, are you aware that this quote was uttered to justify the prosecution of a man for protesting the draft in WWI? And that is legal today to shout it as loudly as you want?
treis 4y ago
The problem is that platforms aren't liable for the damage they cause. If the NYTimes makes up some nonsense that gets people hurt then they are liable. If some jabroni on Facebook does then there's no liability attached to Facebook. Which was probably fine for the BBS/message board days. Probably not so much when Facebook takes an active role in amplifying some messages over others.
- megaman821 4y ago
  If we are going by total harm, mass media is ahead by a mile. How many people died because of false claims of weapons of mass destruction not properly vetted by mainstream media? Over half-a-million. What's the most deadly situation social media caused?
  - marmadukester39 4y ago
    We could start with the ethnic cleansing: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-frances-haugen-whistleblower-testimony-senate-175021764.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-frances-haugen-whist...
    - megaman821 4y ago
      Ok, Google says 2,000 protesters have been killed in Myanmar, just 498,000 more until we reach mass media levels of death. Lies by governments amplified by mass media are always going to be way more damaging than lies by crackpots on social media.
- iaml 4y ago
  You can just generate a bunch of legit looking news sites and spam it on facebook/whatever. Most people won’t check and it’s not viable for facebook to track every fake news site.
NDizzle 4y ago
Apparently you've never seen/heard Hitchens on free speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0

musingsole 4y ago

> I don’t see what is so hard to understand here. We already have the legal clarity , they just needs to be implemented diligently. Then read between the lines and recognize the public in general has moved away from recognition/acceptance of the rules as written and now all the mobs are demanding speech they don't like be restricted by powers on high.

nickff 4y ago

The hypothetical you're using has a long and troubled history, if you're in favor of restrictions on speech, I suggest you use a different one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

runnerup 4y ago
Any suggestions to help steel-man this?
- janalsncm 4y ago
  The current legal standard for 1A protection is “imminent lawless action” from Brandenburg v Ohio. Shouting fire is from an old standard “clear and present danger”. You can look at their respective wiki pages for details and definitions. The history of Free Speech in the US is pretty interesting. The kinds of things that are acceptable today would get you thrown in prison 100 years ago (for example, handing out anti war pamphlets) and are more akin to the kinds of things Americans look down on other countries for criminalizing.
  - la64710 4y ago
    Nothing is set on stone and to accommodate changing times and values there should be a reasonable pathway to change.
foldr 4y ago
I’d like to see some better sourcing for this. The Wikipedia article, bizarrely, claims that shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre (and thereby causing a stampede or some other awful consequence) is actually protected by the First Amendment in the US. However, the only source it gives for this claim is a Reason article. Edit: See here for a more nuanced perspective: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-... Shouting “Bomb!” or “Gun!” in public would put you in a similar situation. In May 2018, for example, officials had to evacuate part of Daytona Beach International Airport after a man ran naked through the building screaming about a bomb in the women’s bathroom. There was no bomb, but he was charged with “false report of a bomb,” “criminal mischief,” and “exposure of sexual organs,” among other things. In that case, no self-respecting lawyer would advise him to claim his actions were protected by the First Amendment.
- johng 4y ago
  The speech is protected but you are not protected from the consequences it causes if you use it wrongly.
  - foldr 4y ago
    Yes - that is exactly the point of the analogy. Compare for example political speech, which can also have terrible consequences, but where it would be an obvious violation of the First Amendment to (e.g.) prosecute an economist for the terrible consequences of their economic ideas.
  - SkyBelow 4y ago
    What does it mean for speech to be protected if not meaning to be protected from the consequences? Could I not say one is free to murder but one is not protected from the consequences of murder? I think we can break down government and non-government consequences, but given the previous discussions in the chain were on legality I think the discussion is already focused on government consequences. As a side note I think the non-government consequences can then be broken down further to legal and illegal actions, with the idea the only consequences you aren't protected from are the legal non-government consequences.
la64710 4y ago
Ok fine I rephrase : If someone *falsely* yells FIRE without a real FIRE in a crowded town hall that causes a stampede resulting in death or injury - I guess it is ground for bringing criminal charges against the original yeller. But my point is since it is clearly defined legally do we have to really over analyze it to the point of inducing paralysis?
- jjcc 4y ago
  You are still discussing in a hypothetical situation that most people can have a consensus about the information eventually. i.e. the information (If the FIRE really happened or not) can be falsified. What really caused conflicts and damage are the situations the "lies" cannot be falsified (just in current population due the the limit of intelligence, no necessary for smart people in future generations), and the yeller is not a typical liar but belong to a special specie (majority of politicians who have good skill in elections) that totally believe their lies so there's no legal ground base to charge them. There have been already a lot of damaging consequences and seems continue to have more because of this. Do we have reverse yellers yelling "NO FIRE" to balance the ongoing damages? The are very few for some important issues. There's no way to counter balance. Why? It's not because there are less people know the truth. In real world it's not a clear cut model that information can be passed back and forth independently between a yeller and audience. The misinformation exists because there are eager misinformation consumers. There are a very large portion of people need the yelling of "FIRE" and hence there are more "FIRE" yellers. This is another discrepancy between your model and real world.
  - la64710 4y ago
    > and the yeller is not a typical liar but belong to a special specie (majority of politicians who have good skill in elections) that totally believe their lies so there's no legal ground base to charge them. There have been already a lot of damaging consequences and seems continue to have more because of this. - If it is damaging yet done repeatedly obviously it is wrong. Things may not be clear the first time but soon becomes clearer. And if the yeller claim to not know the consequences they better not say something until they collect and analyze more data.

billiam 4y ago

Um, are you aware that this quote was uttered to justify the prosecution of a man for protesting the draft in WWI? And that is legal today to shout it as loudly as you want?

treis 4y ago

The problem is that platforms aren't liable for the damage they cause. If the NYTimes makes up some nonsense that gets people hurt then they are liable. If some jabroni on Facebook does then there's no liability attached to Facebook. Which was probably fine for the BBS/message board days. Probably not so much when Facebook takes an active role in amplifying some messages over others.

megaman821 4y ago
If we are going by total harm, mass media is ahead by a mile. How many people died because of false claims of weapons of mass destruction not properly vetted by mainstream media? Over half-a-million. What's the most deadly situation social media caused?
- marmadukester39 4y ago
  We could start with the ethnic cleansing: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-frances-haugen-whistleblower-testimony-senate-175021764.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-frances-haugen-whist...
  - megaman821 4y ago
    Ok, Google says 2,000 protesters have been killed in Myanmar, just 498,000 more until we reach mass media levels of death. Lies by governments amplified by mass media are always going to be way more damaging than lies by crackpots on social media.
iaml 4y ago
You can just generate a bunch of legit looking news sites and spam it on facebook/whatever. Most people won’t check and it’s not viable for facebook to track every fake news site.

NDizzle 4y ago

Apparently you've never seen/heard Hitchens on free speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0