you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Sendnoodles 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I agree with most of this article but to be totally honest, I've almost never heard anyone make most of these arguments. There are two points on here I would take issue with.

  1. The right to free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say; it still leaves other people free to kick you out.

This is 100% true. In fact if someone does ban you or kick you out of a private space for saying something they don't like, that action in and of itself is a form of free speech. Private individuals can do what they want. That's a pretty libertarian idea and I don't see how a true believer in free speech could argue with it. Just because you're allowed to say what you want doesn't mean others aren't allowed to think you're a jerk and act accordingly.

  1. But you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre.

The articles asks "who says?" Well, the government. It is literally illegal, and with good reason. Your rights end where mine begin. Doing such a thing could easily cause injury or death to others. I have the right to live free from harm due to your ignorance or stupidy (general you, not talking to anyone specifically). Don't forget other people also have rights. People who constantly scream about their rights always seem to forget others also have rights.

Most of these other points, while good points are by and large strawmen. I've never heard anyone say most of them, and the couple I have heard, no one takes the person saying them seriously.

[–]Chipit[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Did you know the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was used to put socialists in prison? For protesting WWI?

Kind of puts a new light on it, doesn't it?

Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough | Popehat. Holmes' quote about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.

"Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech. This post is not about fisking Sarah Chayes; her column deserves it, but I will leave it to another time. This post is about putting the Holmes quote in context, and explaining why it adds nothing to a First Amendment debate.

Holmes' famous quote comes in the context of a series of early 1919 Supreme Court decisions in which he endorsed government censorship of wartime dissent — dissent that is now clearly protected by subsequent First Amendment authority.

After Holmes' opinions in the Schenck trilogy, the law of the United States was this: you could be convicted and sentenced to prison under the Espionage Act if you criticized the war, or conscription, in a way that "obstructed" conscription, which might mean as little as convincing people to write and march and petition against it. This is the context of the "fire in a theater" quote that people so love to brandish to justify censorship.

The damage Holmes inflicted — the malleable and unprincipled standard of censorship he drafted — was not thoroughly rebuffed until a half-century later. Brandenburg v. Ohio states the modern standard."

Read the whole thing, it's complete with references and updates that "fire in a theater" argument from 1919 to the modern day. There's been a century of jurisprudence since then.

Unless you support anti-war socialists being thrown in prison.

[–]Sendnoodles 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Did you know the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was used to put socialists in prison? For protesting WWI?

Not entirely. Someone misused it in the past. That's totally fucked up I agree, but if it's used correctly according to it's actual intent, then it makes a lot of sense.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You read where the judge totally went back on it once he realized what he did, right?

And shouting fire in a crowded theater means saying something false.

[–]Sendnoodles 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I hadn't read their explanation at the time of my comment, I went back and read it now. I did think about it more but my feelings are unchanged. I agree with it in principle. In the literal interpretation, I don't think shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should qualify as protected speech. There is room for abuse though and I am certainly against to it being used falsely to silence opposition or people simply saying things you don't like.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mill's Trident

Mill recognizes that there are only three possibilities in any given argument:

  1. You are wrong, in which case freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.

  2. You are partially correct, in which case you need free speech and contrary viewpoints to help you get a more precise understanding of what the truth really is.

  3. You are 100% correct, in the unlikely event that you are 100% correct, you still need people to argue with you, to try to contradict you, and to try to prove you wrong. Why? Because if you never have to defend your points of view, there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them, and that you hold them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition. It’s only through arguing with contrary viewpoints that you come to understand why what you believe is true.

Throughout history, powerful people have elevated their own prejudices and superstitions to the third category, protecting them for a time by censoring contrary viewpoints. And once that censorship failed, as nearly all censorship eventually does, those ideas were often exposed as wrong.

Don't be on the side of the powerful. Be on our side. Free speech is the best weapon of the little guy.