5 ms·

> Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say. In other words

> Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say. In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? It's your fault for saying whatever you said! You should have been more careful!

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
There are consequences and there are government consequences. The latter is bad, the former falls under free speech. A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc. (There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)
ctdonath 11y ago
No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. Do I really have to explain the concept? Saying that "I have it on clear authority that vacri & sillygoose are thieves; liars; adulterers; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; etc" is of itself not actionable, but if such libel can be adjudicated the cause of otherwise baseless abuse by society inflicted on vacri & sillygoose then yes I can be incarcerated as a danger to society. Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Honestly, I wouldn't be too upset if the ones who committed the abuse itself were the ones held responsible. The person who said that ctdonath is a predator has wronged you but the one who stabbed you because they thought you a predator is the criminal.
  - techdragon 11y ago
    The consequences come down on both, one is a homicide the other is a case of manslaughter, both should be judged by the law, and punished if that's the judgement.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Why should one be manslaughter? Especially when it would've been protected under current rules had they just said 'I think' before it.
      - ctdonath 11y ago
        it would've been protected under current rules had they just said 'I think' before it. Monty Python addresses that issue quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY
- sillygoose 11y ago
  > No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. You do realize that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is not the kind with negative consequences for innocent bystanders, don't you? It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. The poster whom I responded to didn't seem aware of these distinctions, which is why I snarked at him. > Do I really have to explain the concept? No, you don't. > Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office. But I guess it's alright to have liars, crooks and wannabe-tyrants in there?
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof. If there IS a fire, then by all means yell "fire!" accordingly. I've twice seen Penn Jillette stand on stage before thousands, juggling flaming torches, pontificating loudly about and proceeding to yell "fire!" I've seen the movie _Backdraft_ in a movie theater; there was much yelling of "fire!" therein. And, of course, if you scare a crowd into a life-threatening stampede by yelling "fire!" when there isn't one, then you're culpable for any harm that follows. All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      > I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof. That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard, as I'm sure you're aware. So I can't see a reason to spend this much time discussing yelling "fire" in a theater. > All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat. I portrayed nothing of the sort. Here's what I originally said: >> In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? But nevermind, we've probably wasted enough of each other's time here.
Torgo 11y ago
This is an honest question: if someone uses their freedom of speech to vocally support overthrowing a democratically elected government and replace it with a fascist dictatorship, would the government watching that person closely be a violation of their free speech?
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Watching, insofar as it does not get into 4th Amendment search-and-seizure territory, is reasonable. This is a variant of: you have the right to publicly say what you like, and I have the right to listen, document what you said, and say you're an idiot for saying it.
  - minot 11y ago
    > Watching, insofar as it does not get into 4th Amendment search-and-seizure territory, is reasonable. A problem is that the fourth amendment is itself under attack as well...
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  This gets into the area of chilling effects. I would say yes, assuming the government would never abuse such information. That is to say, no.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

There are consequences and there are government consequences. The latter is bad, the former falls under free speech. A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc. (There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)

ctdonath 11y ago

No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. Do I really have to explain the concept? Saying that "I have it on clear authority that vacri & sillygoose are thieves; liars; adulterers; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; etc" is of itself not actionable, but if such libel can be adjudicated the cause of otherwise baseless abuse by society inflicted on vacri & sillygoose then yes I can be incarcerated as a danger to society. Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Honestly, I wouldn't be too upset if the ones who committed the abuse itself were the ones held responsible. The person who said that ctdonath is a predator has wronged you but the one who stabbed you because they thought you a predator is the criminal.
- techdragon 11y ago
  The consequences come down on both, one is a homicide the other is a case of manslaughter, both should be judged by the law, and punished if that's the judgement.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Why should one be manslaughter? Especially when it would've been protected under current rules had they just said 'I think' before it.
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      it would've been protected under current rules had they just said 'I think' before it. Monty Python addresses that issue quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY
sillygoose 11y ago
> No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. You do realize that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is not the kind with negative consequences for innocent bystanders, don't you? It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. The poster whom I responded to didn't seem aware of these distinctions, which is why I snarked at him. > Do I really have to explain the concept? No, you don't. > Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office. But I guess it's alright to have liars, crooks and wannabe-tyrants in there?
- ctdonath 11y ago
  It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof. If there IS a fire, then by all means yell "fire!" accordingly. I've twice seen Penn Jillette stand on stage before thousands, juggling flaming torches, pontificating loudly about and proceeding to yell "fire!" I've seen the movie _Backdraft_ in a movie theater; there was much yelling of "fire!" therein. And, of course, if you scare a crowd into a life-threatening stampede by yelling "fire!" when there isn't one, then you're culpable for any harm that follows. All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    > I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof. That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard, as I'm sure you're aware. So I can't see a reason to spend this much time discussing yelling "fire" in a theater. > All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat. I portrayed nothing of the sort. Here's what I originally said: >> In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? But nevermind, we've probably wasted enough of each other's time here.

Torgo 11y ago

This is an honest question: if someone uses their freedom of speech to vocally support overthrowing a democratically elected government and replace it with a fascist dictatorship, would the government watching that person closely be a violation of their free speech?

ctdonath 11y ago
Watching, insofar as it does not get into 4th Amendment search-and-seizure territory, is reasonable. This is a variant of: you have the right to publicly say what you like, and I have the right to listen, document what you said, and say you're an idiot for saying it.
- minot 11y ago
  > Watching, insofar as it does not get into 4th Amendment search-and-seizure territory, is reasonable. A problem is that the fourth amendment is itself under attack as well...
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
This gets into the area of chilling effects. I would say yes, assuming the government would never abuse such information. That is to say, no.