4 ms·

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.wiki

by 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.
    - janalsncm 4y ago
      It means 1A isn’t a defense for that action if you are prosecuted for it.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    You remind me of a dark joke from late Communist Czechoslovakia that said "The Czechoslovak Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech."
- remarkEon 4y ago
  You can just go to the text of the Opinion.[1] >The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts. >The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. >This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536—537, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1346, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (Douglas, J., concurring.) They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas as in Yates and advocacy of political action as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction; and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
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.

by nickff 4y ago

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.
  - janalsncm 4y ago
    It means 1A isn’t a defense for that action if you are prosecuted for it.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  You remind me of a dark joke from late Communist Czechoslovakia that said "The Czechoslovak Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech."
remarkEon 4y ago
You can just go to the text of the Opinion.[1] >The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts. >The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. >This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536—537, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1346, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (Douglas, J., concurring.) They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas as in Yates and advocacy of political action as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction; and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

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.