Is the American notion of freedom of speech worth lives?

[DominionSeraph]

It doesn't maximize the liberty of anyone. Outliers are not enough of a threat to liberty to warrant laws that thwart their behavior where speech is concerned.

What is speech?

 

[zsdersw]

What is speech?

Words or other forms of visual, audible, or tactile expression.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Words or other forms of visual, audible, or tactile expression.

Me stabbing you out of anger would be tactile expression. Is that speech?

 

[zsdersw]

Me stabbing you out of anger would be tactile expression. Is that speech?

No. The key differentiator between speech and actions is who is involved. Speech involves the speaker/creator and no one else (as an audience is not guaranteed). What you're describing is not speech.

"Visual, audible, and tactile expression" refers to expressions you can see, hear, and touch.

 

[DominionSeraph]

No. The key differentiator between speech and actions are who is involved. Speech involves the speaker/creator and no one else (as an audience is not a guarantee). What you're describing is not speech.

Ah, so invasiveness cannot be intrinsic to speech.

The defining characteristic of speech is its passivity. Aggression can be regulated as a separate entity as it can always be separated.

 

[zsdersw]

Ah, so invasiveness cannot be intrinsic to speech.

The defining characteristic of speech is its passivity. Aggression can be regulated as a separate entity as it can always be separated.

Invasiveness, as in trampling on the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (LLPH), is not speech and can be restricted because it reduces the right to LLPH of others.

Yelling "Fire!" in a building even though there isn't a fire (as an example of speech) doesn't invade anyone's right to LLPH. Everyone else remains free to act/react however they choose and their life or freedom isn't jeopardized by the yelling.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Invasiveness, as in trampling on the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (LLPH), is not speech and can be restricted because it reduces the right to LLPH of others.

I don't care what your feelings are. We're still defining speech.

Define speech.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Yelling "Fire!" in a building even though there isn't a fire (as an example of speech) doesn't invade anyone's right to LLPH. Everyone else remains free to act/react however they choose and their life or freedom isn't jeopardized by the yelling.

That something can be designed to cause a reaction shows that the reactor is not free.

There is only freedom in randomness.

 

[zsdersw]

"Fire" isn't a sentence.

Who said there had to be sentences? I said words. Poems often don't have sentences, yet they're "speech".

That something can be designed to cause a reaction shows that the reactor is not free.

It doesn't cause a reaction unless someone chooses to react.

 

[DominionSeraph]

It doesn't cause a reaction unless someone chooses to react.

Choice is not free. How you will react is predetermined.

 

[zsdersw]

Choice is not free. How you will react is predetermined.

Not necessarily, and definitely not in this scenario.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Not necessarily, and definitely not in this scenario.

Humans do not randomly pick a sequence out of the muscular contractions available to them.

 

[zsdersw]

Humans do not randomly pick a sequence out of the muscular contractions available to them.

Randomly, no, but that does not absolve us from the responsibility for those actions/reactions. We're not purely instinctual creatures.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Randomly, no, but that does not absolve us from the responsibility for those actions/reactions.

And when a reaction can be predicted the actor is not absolved of responsibility for his action and its result.

If we could regulate what caused his action, we would do that, too. But that tends to lie in the vagaries of the unknown, so we add just an additional value to his equation -- that of avoiding prison.
He is still free to choose. If you believe in that fairy tale.

We're not purely instinctual creatures.

Noninstinctual != nondeterministic.

 

[zsdersw]

And when a reaction can be predicted the actor is not absolved of responsibility for his action and its result.

Incorrect. Predicted reaction != actual reaction.

Noninstinctual != nondeterministic.

Determined by who or by what?

 

[HAL9000]

We're free so long as we don't negatively impact others' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything more restrictive than that is not something I can support or something I believe is right.

Speech of any kind does not impact another's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Words matter infinitely less than actions. Words can lead to actions, but not without a choice being made. That choice is where all the responsibility is contained.

I can understand that point of view but I would firstly say that I have more rights than just liberty, life and happiness. I would argue that I absolutely have the right not to have hate speech thrown at me, in the same way that no one has the right to fart in my face, or spit in my eye.

I would however argue that walking past people screaming "God hates fags" at me, or trying to perform a funeral for a fallen solider while people shout and picket outside it, particularly during a minute of silence, I would argue is impacting my right to pursuit happiness, I would be (in that situation) un able to pursuit a happy (as possible) funeral/ walk to work or school.

Another example is, that I would argue you do not have the right to play incredibly loud music early in the morning as it would keep me awake, it's a public nuisance, like the WBC.

And with the concept of speech you advocate if GA could get enough people to agree you just committed "hate speech" and need to be told that calling people "pricks" is hate speech and will not be tolerated. That in a nutshell is why I support the right of people to speak freely no matter how repugnant or hateful I may find their speech. Otherwise I am stuck with letting popular opinion and government to determine what I am permitted to say and believe and that which I am not.

I agree but there are two problems with this, firstly most people would not argue that insulting someone in response the their insult of you is not hate speech, and secondly if the majority of people did deem it was that way, then I would happily relinquish my right to insult people. Laws are made for the majority.

 

[Brigandier]

I was thinking for awhile why speech was so confused, the epitome I came to was that speech is confused because the government can decide what you do only to your person, regardless of everyone. I guess I am confused on speech as well, no matter how much I love it.