Free Speech

[John Helpher]

So you are suggesting that we treat the same actions differently depending on the person's belief about the action?

Uhhh. Not quite. Did you read my post? Look again at what I said starting with the second paragraph: "But, there should also be some other corroborating evidence than just an impassioned, personal belief."

What happens if someone promotes some quack cure for a terrible illness just in the hopes of making a quick buck, but when they are caught, they claim they genuinely thought it would help?

We already have laws based on intent. It's important to discern what the person's motivations were. If they really did genuinely, and mistakenly believe the cure was valid, then there could still be room to hold them accountable for that mistake, but the consequence should not be as severe as for a person who knowingly sold a quack cure for a profit.

There are ways to discern intent; For example, are there any other witnesses who also believe the same thing? Is there a means of testing the treatment and if so, how? What is this person's track record with regard to money issues and trustworthiness?

Who are this person's business associates? Are there any conflicts of interest? Does this person have any practical experience in the field in which he's making a claim? If not, is he able to point to any corroborating expert who does have experience in this field? Does that corroborating expert have any conflicts of interest?

There are many ways to discern if a person is worth hearing, or if he should be shut up, but these methods are only as good as the integrity of those who exercise them.

Again, this is why I say that we should be promoting wise speech, as wisdom necessarily suggests integrity.