4 ms·

You're saying you don't believe giving orders is a form of speech. Can you justify that in more detail?

zahlman 1y ago
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that when an order is given, it has other properties, aside from "being a form of speech", and those are the properties that make it bad to give an order to do a harmful thing. The simple fact that it is uttered, is not what's problematic about the order. It is therefore not valid to say that "you believe speech can harm people", any more than "you believe breathing can harm people" (since breathing is a prerequisite to being alive, which is a prerequisite to giving an order).
- immibis 1y ago
  Okay, so speech should be banned, in contradiction to the first amendment, if it has certain properties you don't like? The first amendment says there are no properties of speech which entitle Congress to ban it.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Okay, so speech should be banned, in contradiction to the first amendment, if it has certain properties you don't like? No. What I am saying is very simple and I find it very hard to believe that it could be misunderstood in good faith. But I will try one last time to make it as absolutely clear as possible before ignoring you. Giving an order is an action. The action has properties. One of those properties is that it is speech. Another property is that exercises power, to compels someone else to do something. Because the action is compelled, the order-giver can be held responsible for it. But these are both properties of the order. The speech, itself, does not have the property of exercising power. Words used for other purposes cannot compel an action. When an action is compelled, it's because an order was given, not because words were spoken. There is a mountain of precedent for this in US law, too. In general, the fact that doing a wrong thing required speaking does not constitute a defense against the wrong thing. If you call emergency services and knowingly make a fradulent claim about an emergency — for example, "swatting", or making a nuisance 911 call — then you commit a crime, and the fact that the crime was put into effect by the act of uttering words will not defend you in a court of law. Penalizing these crimes does not in any way constitute a ban on any form of speech. The same is true of "time, place and manner" restrictions. For example, if you cause hearing damage to someone else through inappropriate use of a loudspeaker, you may still be found guilty of a crime; the question of whether you spoke into the loudspeaker or used some other sound source is irrelevant. Your original claim, in the flagged and killed comment, does not hold water. Hitler used his power to compel his subordinates to kill Jews (and others). To exercise this power, he communicated in natural language (specifically, German). This does not constitute "speech" harming people. It constitutes the use of that power harming people.
    - immibis 1y ago
      That's correct - speaking is an action. Nonetheless, the founding fathers decided that speaking is a type of action which should never be restricted, no matter which other properties it may also have. You may argue for restrictions on the form of speech such as yelling into someone's ear with a megaphone, but that doesn't apply here since ordering someone to kill someone is a matter of content, not form. Unconstitutional precedent does not become constitutional simply because it's precedent.
echelon 1y ago
Let's say we're both in the army and I'm your commanding officer. I order you to kill a civilian and you do it. Did I just kill a civilian, or did I just say some words? I think it's clearly the former. Another case: someone takes private nude photographs of your wife and then uploads them without her consent to social media. Is that "free speech" or sexual assault? I'm pretty close to free speech absolutism, but there are some things that go beyond just being speech or opinions. Libel and defamation (whose scope is very narrow), shouting fire and it leading to injury or death, influencing or instructing someone to kill another person, spreading non-consentual sexual imagery, etc.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that when an order is given, it has other properties, aside from "being a form of speech", and those are the properties that make it bad to give an order to do a harmful thing. The simple fact that it is uttered, is not what's problematic about the order. It is therefore not valid to say that "you believe speech can harm people", any more than "you believe breathing can harm people" (since breathing is a prerequisite to being alive, which is a prerequisite to giving an order).

immibis 1y ago
Okay, so speech should be banned, in contradiction to the first amendment, if it has certain properties you don't like? The first amendment says there are no properties of speech which entitle Congress to ban it.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Okay, so speech should be banned, in contradiction to the first amendment, if it has certain properties you don't like? No. What I am saying is very simple and I find it very hard to believe that it could be misunderstood in good faith. But I will try one last time to make it as absolutely clear as possible before ignoring you. Giving an order is an action. The action has properties. One of those properties is that it is speech. Another property is that exercises power, to compels someone else to do something. Because the action is compelled, the order-giver can be held responsible for it. But these are both properties of the order. The speech, itself, does not have the property of exercising power. Words used for other purposes cannot compel an action. When an action is compelled, it's because an order was given, not because words were spoken. There is a mountain of precedent for this in US law, too. In general, the fact that doing a wrong thing required speaking does not constitute a defense against the wrong thing. If you call emergency services and knowingly make a fradulent claim about an emergency — for example, "swatting", or making a nuisance 911 call — then you commit a crime, and the fact that the crime was put into effect by the act of uttering words will not defend you in a court of law. Penalizing these crimes does not in any way constitute a ban on any form of speech. The same is true of "time, place and manner" restrictions. For example, if you cause hearing damage to someone else through inappropriate use of a loudspeaker, you may still be found guilty of a crime; the question of whether you spoke into the loudspeaker or used some other sound source is irrelevant. Your original claim, in the flagged and killed comment, does not hold water. Hitler used his power to compel his subordinates to kill Jews (and others). To exercise this power, he communicated in natural language (specifically, German). This does not constitute "speech" harming people. It constitutes the use of that power harming people.
  - immibis 1y ago
    That's correct - speaking is an action. Nonetheless, the founding fathers decided that speaking is a type of action which should never be restricted, no matter which other properties it may also have. You may argue for restrictions on the form of speech such as yelling into someone's ear with a megaphone, but that doesn't apply here since ordering someone to kill someone is a matter of content, not form. Unconstitutional precedent does not become constitutional simply because it's precedent.

echelon 1y ago

Let's say we're both in the army and I'm your commanding officer. I order you to kill a civilian and you do it. Did I just kill a civilian, or did I just say some words? I think it's clearly the former. Another case: someone takes private nude photographs of your wife and then uploads them without her consent to social media. Is that "free speech" or sexual assault? I'm pretty close to free speech absolutism, but there are some things that go beyond just being speech or opinions. Libel and defamation (whose scope is very narrow), shouting fire and it leading to injury or death, influencing or instructing someone to kill another person, spreading non-consentual sexual imagery, etc.