Is not tolerating the intolerant intolerant

[Shell B]

[quote=Shell B;113355]
I thought we were talking about actions, not speech.

In law, which was what he was discussing, saying you are going to kill somebody and doing it are very different things. You would be hard pressed to find a law that says, "Islamic people can't say they want to kill infidels." However, it would be easy to find a law that says, "Murder is punishable by law." I'm sure you understood what I was saying.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I understood that, my point was just that speech actions are actions too, and whilst freedom of speech actions is less restricted than freedom of other actions, and speech is less potentially harmful, it doesn't mean that speech can't do any harm at all or that it should have 100% freedom bar none exceptions.

So I don't know what you mean when you say "I thought we were talking about actions, not speech" speech is relevant too to the matter of tolerating the intolerant or not. Speech actions are actions too, they do things like other actions do they just have a lot less power and can't conflict physical damage (or at least not directly).

[Shell B]

Yeah I understood that, my point was just that speech actions are actions too, and whilst freedom of speech actions is less restricted than freedom of other actions, and speech is less potentially harmful, it doesn't mean that speech can't do any harm at all or that it should have 100% freedom bar none exceptions.

So I don't know what you mean when you say "I thought we were talking about actions, not speech" speech is relevant too to the matter of tolerating the intolerant or not. Speech actions are actions too, they do things like other actions do they just have a lot less power and can't conflict physical damage (or at least not directly).

I know that speeches are actions as well and that speech can cause harm (I still think we should be able to say whatever we want without legal retribution, but that is another topic altogether.)

When I say, "I thought we were talking about actions, not speech." I mean that the OP was clearly talking about laws saying that people could not obey their holy book. He said nothing about whether people could say they wanted to follow their holy book. Therefore, his topic wasn't about free speech as much as it was about freedom of action.

Clearly, many people (and the law) think of physical actions and speech as two separate issues. Hence the term, "Actions speak louder than words." As we were talking about law, the two are separate.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sorry Shell,

I did read the OP but by the time I'd posted that post I'd forgot the details of it.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yeah, many people consider speech to not be actions but I try to take a more philosophical approach and judge whether they actually are a type of action.

[Shell B]

Sorry Shell,

I did read the OP but by the time I'd posted that post I'd forgot the details of it.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yeah, many people consider speech to not be actions but I try to take a more philosophical approach and judge whether they actually are a type of action.

No need to apologize. You raised a good point and I do think people should be held responsible for their words (if they're sane). Just not legally.

[Minimalist]

Minimalist Wrote: What if the theater really is on fire?


Then people are allowed to shout "fire".

Absolutely, DvF but consider that the reaction is likely to be the same in either case: A stampede which may well result in a number of people being trampled to death. Yet, in one case we would applaud the guy who sounded the warning and in the other we would condemn him.

I give you a third case to mull. Suppose you are in a theater and "think" you smell smoke. What do you do?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well yes I completely agree.

But should people be allowed to do it if they are doing it for malicious reasons? They'd have to be pretty mad, but still.

[Minimalist]

No, of course not. But then you have to gauge "intent." It is not the act itself which is inherently good or bad.

A fact which Oliver Wendell Holmes duly considered in writing his opinion...and one which is almost always eliminated when people use that example.

"Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment."


BTW, Holmes' opinion in this case was later overturned by the court.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, of course not. But then you have to gauge "intent." It is not the act itself which is inherently good or bad.

I think that it is ultimately just the act. But malicious intentions usually lead to more long-term (and often short-term) negative consequences.

A fact which Oliver Wendell Holmes duly considered in writing his opinion...and one which is almost always eliminated when people use that example.

I have a Consequentalist understanding of why bad intentions are usually worse than good intentions. I can't say I disagree.

[...]
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment."

I agree with him.

BTW, Holmes' opinion in this case was later overturned by the court.

That really sucks. He had an absolutely solid perspective on the matter.

What is the Law on the matter today? Forgive me for my ignorance of Law, America and Geography and politics in general and whatnot.