3 ms·

Absolutism isn't the point. We all know that there are limits - the classic example of yelling fire in a crowed theater. And as somebody below pointed out, no c

by bwanab 3y ago

Absolutism isn't the point. We all know that there are limits - the classic example of yelling fire in a crowed theater. And as somebody below pointed out, no country has full freedom of speech and while that is true the US does have freedom of speech enshrined in its founding documents as the first amendment. For most other countries, it's not a clear "right" except by common practice and legislation that could be easily revised. But, the point is, we should always have the presumption of freedom of speech. As a matter of course that means we also must have certain responsibilities for the consequences of exercising that freedom. This last point often gets overlooked.

littlestymaar 3y ago
How does that works with your initial comment though?
bdzr 3y ago
FWIW, fire in a crowded theater usually is legal. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-fire-crowded-theater-speech-regulation/621151/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-f...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ethbr1 3y ago
The limits in the US are essentially action. You can say whatever you want. But when you take an illegal action (or, grey area, compel someone else to take an action) then you lose free speech protections. "Fire" in a movie theater is the classic example of the court deciding what sort of speech consitutes compelling action. This in contrast to other many other countries, where there is no guarantee that speech-that-does-not-compel-action will always be free. To me, speech vs action is a critical distinction, because it prevents anyone in power from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas by banning an idea itself. While simultaneously preventing the worst societal consequences from actions. Or, in other words... neo Nazis should be allowed to march peacefully... but so should everyone else. And the latter should massively outweigh the former. (That said, nothing prevents keeping a much closer eye on violence-espousing neo Nazis)
- FrankoDelMar 3y ago
  Aren’t the limits in the US you mention more accurately described as the consequences of an action rather than the action itself? For example if you suggest a person to commit suicide and they actually do it, you could be held responsible for murder/manslaughter, but if that person didn’t do anything then it’s a much less severe crime. Similarly, at what point does saying fire in a theater become illegal? Do I have to yell? How loudly do I have to yell? What if the room is empty? What if I only said it loudly enough for the people adjacent to me can hear it? Or is it not the consequence of people panicking, possibly trampling over each other is what makes it illegal rather than the speech itself?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    In the case of yelling fire, the illegal action would be commiting assault and murder against another person. When yelling fire without a compelling reason, a reasonable person would anticipate everyone else's standard reaction, and that in the course of that action injury and/or death might occur. Which is why culpability in the US depends on the speaker's intent. What if I believed I smelled smoke and yelled "Fire" because of that? But was simply wrong? Unfortunately, intent is impossible to prove definitively, without actually peering into someone else's mind. Thus, can of worms.
- laverya 3y ago
  > "Fire" in a movie theater is the classic example of the court deciding what sort of speech consitutes compelling action. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an analogy that was used to justify banning antidraft activism in the first world war. It is very much allowed under current precedent. "Directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" is the current standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- pieter_mj 3y ago
  US style free speech is a huge driving force for innovation. We'll see the opposite soon when the EU tries to regulate AI.

by bwanab 3y ago

littlestymaar 3y ago

How does that works with your initial comment though?

bdzr 3y ago

FWIW, fire in a crowded theater usually is legal. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-fire-crowded-theater-speech-regulation/621151/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-f...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ethbr1 3y ago

The limits in the US are essentially action. You can say whatever you want. But when you take an illegal action (or, grey area, compel someone else to take an action) then you lose free speech protections. "Fire" in a movie theater is the classic example of the court deciding what sort of speech consitutes compelling action. This in contrast to other many other countries, where there is no guarantee that speech-that-does-not-compel-action will always be free. To me, speech vs action is a critical distinction, because it prevents anyone in power from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas by banning an idea itself. While simultaneously preventing the worst societal consequences from actions. Or, in other words... neo Nazis should be allowed to march peacefully... but so should everyone else. And the latter should massively outweigh the former. (That said, nothing prevents keeping a much closer eye on violence-espousing neo Nazis)

FrankoDelMar 3y ago
Aren’t the limits in the US you mention more accurately described as the consequences of an action rather than the action itself? For example if you suggest a person to commit suicide and they actually do it, you could be held responsible for murder/manslaughter, but if that person didn’t do anything then it’s a much less severe crime. Similarly, at what point does saying fire in a theater become illegal? Do I have to yell? How loudly do I have to yell? What if the room is empty? What if I only said it loudly enough for the people adjacent to me can hear it? Or is it not the consequence of people panicking, possibly trampling over each other is what makes it illegal rather than the speech itself?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  In the case of yelling fire, the illegal action would be commiting assault and murder against another person. When yelling fire without a compelling reason, a reasonable person would anticipate everyone else's standard reaction, and that in the course of that action injury and/or death might occur. Which is why culpability in the US depends on the speaker's intent. What if I believed I smelled smoke and yelled "Fire" because of that? But was simply wrong? Unfortunately, intent is impossible to prove definitively, without actually peering into someone else's mind. Thus, can of worms.
laverya 3y ago
> "Fire" in a movie theater is the classic example of the court deciding what sort of speech consitutes compelling action. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an analogy that was used to justify banning antidraft activism in the first world war. It is very much allowed under current precedent. "Directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" is the current standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
pieter_mj 3y ago
US style free speech is a huge driving force for innovation. We'll see the opposite soon when the EU tries to regulate AI.