Is freedom of speech over-rated

[RogerRoger]

If someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater it is not that person but the stupidity of the mob that causes harm. If there was an actual fire and a person yelled "Fire" and the mob reacted in such a way as to harm the same amount of people as would be harmed by a false alarm would anyone still say it was the person's speech that caused the problem? No because it was not the yelling of "Fire " that caused the harm but the unreasonable behavior of the people in response to hearing it. Instead of punishing the speaker, ought not the person(s) trampling others in a selfish attempt to escape before those in front of him/her be the one blamed for the harm. In other words the one doing the harm ought to be the one blamed and considered responsible for the harm. IMO there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that ought to be considered a criminal offense.

Thanks for your contribution - Even though I disagree I respect how you've gone about this.

I have a few objections, first to the case of yelling "fire", and then a more general one about criminal offenses.

Yelling "Fire"

• Why is a crowd trying to rush out of a room, believing there to be a fire, stupid by default? Perhaps the circumstances make it highly unlikely that a fire could actually occur, but in a crowded theatre that is probably not the case. Group psychology points to principles that act powerfully to reduce individual considerations, which can lead to panic, rage, etc. This isn't stupidity, but part of human nature explained.
• The example of yelling fire in the case of an actual fire actually proves the opposite of the point you are trying to make. You've proved that when there is a fire, people act quickly and with reduced consideration to others to preserve their own life and body. In that case, the yeller is not at fault, but I wouldn't necessarily 'fault' the crowd either. Yes, these actions are inherently selfish, but that alone doesn't make them culpable.
• This is one of the situations where it might be more appropriate to assign responsibility to the crowd, without necessarily making them culpable or blameworthy. Because of this, by yelling fire, you are intentionally causing this panicked state, which in turn is causing the crowd to act. I, and the criminal justice system, would assign blame to you.

Criminal Conduct
I understand (or am trying to) where you are coming from when you say speech shouldn't be criminal conduct. I just disagree. What about the following cases (with varying degrees of real-world applicability)?

• Telling someone you are going to kill them
• Telling a bank teller you will shoot them if they don't give over the bank's money. You don't even need to have a visible weapon or act intimidatingly
• Directing someone who is carrying something and cannot see (someone moving furniture) to fall down the stairs to their death
• Directing a blind person to fall to their death or be otherwise harmed
• Calling for someone to kill a third party
• Goading someone into suicide
• Intentionally committing fraud by selling a product or service under false terms (bad investment, snake oil, etc)
• Intentionally misrepresenting the ingredients in a food product, causing death via allergic reaction

Can you defend each of these from being blameworthy?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why is a crowd trying to rush out of a room, believing there to be a fire, stupid by default? Perhaps the circumstances make it highly unlikely that a fire could actually occur, but in a crowded theatre that is probably not the case. Group psychology points to principles that act powerfully to reduce individual considerations, which can lead to panic, rage, etc. This isn't stupidity, but part of human nature explained.

The crowd has no reason to rush out as there is no evidence that a fire will overtake them if one has started. One can surely tell that there is no immediate danger by looking around. They have been trained to leave the area in an orderly fashion so rushing out is not simply an instinctive thing but something less reasonable than that. Some individuals in the crowd are trampling others in order to get ahead of them because they have been told they can do so without fear because the person yelling will be blamed for the assault they are perpetrating. Humans are not herd animals. They have the ability to reason as individuals. There is no excuse for behavior that has been practiced( fire drills from the time we are children in Kindergarten) to be ignored in these situations. To me, practicing a behavior for years and abandoning it because someone yelled a word is stupid. Group Psychology tells me that people will use Group Psychology as an excuse to act irresponsibly. I see no reason to blame a word for the harm caused by a person or a mob.

 

[grasping the after wind]

• Telling someone you are going to kill them

• Telling a bank teller you will shoot them if they don't give over the bank's money. You don't even need to have a visible weapon or act intimidatingly

• Directing someone who is carrying something and cannot see (someone moving furniture) to fall down the stairs to their death

• Directing a blind person to fall to their death or be otherwise harmed

• Calling for someone to kill a third party

• Goading someone into suicide

• Intentionally committing fraud by selling a product or service under false terms (bad investment, snake oil, etc)

• Intentionally misrepresenting the ingredients in a food product, causing death via allergic reaction

Telling someone you are going to kill them
Nothing criminal there.

Telling a bank teller you will shoot them if they don't give over the bank's money. You don't even need to have a visible weapon or act intimidatingly
Grand Theft is the crime here not speech.

Directing someone who is carrying something and cannot see (someone moving furniture) to fall down the stairs to their death and Directing a blind person to fall to their death or be otherwise harmed.

How would one prove that the directions were meant to cause harm? Would one assume ill intent? It seems you are doing this as you don't allow for the possibility that the speaker was just poor at giving directions or that the hearer was confused a or did not follow the directions given.

Calling for someone to kill a third party

Any killing done by a third party is the third party's crime. Paying someone to kill or coercing someone to kill are different than simply telling.

Goading someone into suicide
Despite attempts to redefine the word in the case of euthanasia, suicide means killing oneself. Only you can commit suicide. No amount of goading can make you.

Intentionally committing fraud by selling a product or service under false terms (bad investment, snake oil, etc)
Fraud is a crime it is not the speech that is the problem it is the exchange of something different from what was promised. Had the same speech occured and the proper thing procured no crime would be committed.

Intentionally misrepresenting the ingredients in a food product, causing death via allergic reaction.

False advertising. A crime. Doesn't even have to be intentional.

 

[RogerRoger]

The crowd has no reason to rush out as there is no evidence that a fire will overtake them if one has started.

Except for the person yelling "Fire"

One can surely tell that there is no immediate danger by looking around.

Agreed, at least in most cases. Sometimes all it takes is a single person to start rushing for others to follow, in which case you might take that as evidence, along with the person yelling "Fire", because you might inherently trust that know one would intentionally yell that if there wasn't a fire.

Group Psychology tells me that people will use Group Psychology as an excuse to act irresponsibly. I see no reason to blame a word for the harm caused by a person or a mob.

First, people are rarely actually aware of group psychology, at least in the intricacies of how it is thought to work. That field of psychology is set up to explain pre-existing behaviors. To suggest it only works because people know of it misses that point. Yes, it's possible some people think about, for example, the by-stander effect when in a crowd and waiting for someone to do something, but it's more likely that most people are simply operating an simple discomfort and instinct.

I don't mean to say that what you're suggesting doesn't happen, but to suggest that's the case all of the time, or even most of the time, requires evidence. The existing body of evidence for group psychology suggests otherwise.

It's not even like people panic every time an emergency occurs. Here's an excerpt from the abstract of an interesting study in crowd psychology in emergencies:

"It was found that far from mass panic occurring, being in an emergency can create a common identity amongst those affected. A consequence of this is that people are cooperative and altruistic towards others – even when amongst strangers, and/or in life–threatening situations. "
​

The argument against yelling "fire" doesn't rest on panic happening every time, which relies on what you call stupid behavior. It is about preventing a threat, because in situations of emergency (or perceived emergency) you are not always thinking soundly.

My own desire to absolve people who do panic of blame isn't necessarily justified, nor does it have to be. You can explain the behavior of panicking without justifying it, or you can have both be blameworthy for the harm - each person who tramples another is responsible, AND the person yelling "Fire" is responsible, in full or in part, for the total harm.

 

[Zoii]

Telling someone you are going to kill them
Nothing criminal there.

Telling a bank teller you will shoot them if they don't give over the bank's money. You don't even need to have a visible weapon or act intimidatingly
Grand Theft is the crime here not speech.

Directing someone who is carrying something and cannot see (someone moving furniture) to fall down the stairs to their death and Directing a blind person to fall to their death or be otherwise harmed.

How would one prove that the directions were meant to cause harm? Would one assume ill intent? It seems you are doing this as you don't allow for the possibility that the speaker was just poor at giving directions or that the hearer was confused a or did not follow the directions given.

Calling for someone to kill a third party

Any killing done by a third party is the third party's crime. Paying someone to kill or coercing someone to kill are different than simply telling.

Goading someone into suicide
Despite attempts to redefine the word in the case of euthanasia, suicide means killing oneself. Only you can commit suicide. No amount of goading can make you.

Intentionally committing fraud by selling a product or service under false terms (bad investment, snake oil, etc)
Fraud is a crime it is not the speech that is the problem it is the exchange of something different from what was promised. Had the same speech occured and the proper thing procured no crime would be committed.

Intentionally misrepresenting the ingredients in a food product, causing death via allergic reaction.

False advertising. A crime. Doesn't even have to be intentional.

You underrate the power and impact of speech. Things said or written influence society's bechaviours. This OP aimed to look at this impact. The lead up to the Rwandan genocide of Tutsis was focussed on the power of words to demonize a group and to incite action. Just because we haveva legal right to say what we want, should society allow it.

 

[RogerRoger]

Telling someone you are going to kill them
Nothing criminal there.

Telling a bank teller you will shoot them if they don't give over the bank's money. You don't even need to have a visible weapon or act intimidatingly
Grand Theft is the crime here not speech.

Directing someone who is carrying something and cannot see (someone moving furniture) to fall down the stairs to their death and Directing a blind person to fall to their death or be otherwise harmed.

How would one prove that the directions were meant to cause harm? Would one assume ill intent? It seems you are doing this as you don't allow for the possibility that the speaker was just poor at giving directions or that the hearer was confused a or did not follow the directions given.

Calling for someone to kill a third party

Any killing done by a third party is the third party's crime. Paying someone to kill or coercing someone to kill are different than simply telling.

Goading someone into suicide
Despite attempts to redefine the word in the case of euthanasia, suicide means killing oneself. Only you can commit suicide. No amount of goading can make you.

Intentionally committing fraud by selling a product or service under false terms (bad investment, snake oil, etc)
Fraud is a crime it is not the speech that is the problem it is the exchange of something different from what was promised. Had the same speech occured and the proper thing procured no crime would be committed.

Intentionally misrepresenting the ingredients in a food product, causing death via allergic reaction.

False advertising. A crime. Doesn't even have to be intentional.

Thanks for the responses! I'll try to respond in kind.

Telling someone you are going to kill them
Nothing criminal there.​

I don't see how you can justify this. Threats of violence, or intimidation, are all criminal behaviors. This is true even if no words are spoken. Do you disagree that pointing a gun at someone is a crime? Both are threats or attempts at intimidation. If they are criminal, then you have to disagree that telling someone you are going to kill them is a threat or intimidation, which I don't think is a defensible position to take.

Telling a bank teller you will shoot them if they don't give over the bank's money. You don't even need to have a visible weapon or act intimidatingly
Grand Theft is the crime here not speech.​

I don't really understand this defense. If you change the words, it seems indefensible. If we're talking about shooting someone to death and murder for example, would you say:

"Murder is the crime, not the shooting"? Because if so, we're simply dancing around the meanings here.

Directing someone who is carrying something and cannot see (someone moving furniture) to fall down the stairs to their death and Directing a blind person to fall to their death or be otherwise harmed.
How would one prove that the directions were meant to cause harm? Would one assume ill intent? It seems you are doing this as you don't allow for the possibility that the speaker was just poor at giving directions or that the hearer was confused a or did not follow the directions given.​

This is an objection about evidence, not the crime itself. In our thought experiment, assume ill intent, and that there is proof, and consider if the speech is criminal.

Calling for someone to kill a third party
Any killing done by a third party is the third party's crime. Paying someone to kill or coercing someone to kill are different than simply telling.​

Here the speech is the means by which either conspiracy, or aiding and abetting is committed.

If we're saying that any of these (or the other) examples of speech are not the crime, but merely the means, and therefore not technically criminal, I would disagree.

Regardless those are all examples of speech that would be restricted regardless given the circumstances. For example, you would still not be allowed to tell a teller to hand over the money, because by doing so you would be committing an offense. If in nothing other than in effect, that speech would be restricted and criminal, and justifiably so.

This has been a really interesting discussion so far, I really appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Peter J Barban]

To talk about limiting speech is to beg the question of who makes the rules. Naturally, SJWs believe that they should set the rules and let the government enforce SJ will.

One way or the other, SJproponents seek to control everyone's speech which will lead to controlling everyone's actions. So, when one of them asks if free speech is overrated - the answer is "No, no, eternally no."

 

[teresa]

zoii congratulations on starting the very first thread in this new sub forum.

This is a very interesting topic and Im enjoying the discussion.

G_d bless you.

 

[samir]

Countries that value and legally support fredom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

I agree it should have limits but not just to silence conservative Christians. If you want to make it illegal to preach Christianity because you think it fostered the jewish holocaust then it should be illegal to promote abortion and same sex marriage.

 

[Targaryen]

Countries that value and legally support freedom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

Freedom of Speech is always open to abuse, that's also why it's free. We may strongly disagree with what someone chooses to say. But there is the freedom to counter that, rebuke it or even to ignore.

Throwing on limits to it, unless in certain situations (ie: Telling a Judge where to go during a case involving you, for example) but the minute we start trying to limit what can be said, we start going to extremes other countries have used or will use to limit criticism or anything that is not an official party line.

 

[Mare Liberum]

Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

Your basic assumption is head-over-heels wrong; governments do not secure freedom of associations and speech for their subjects, governments perpetuate the echo chamber through propaganda and fear. A better question becomes, are limits on freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse? Yes, they are. Your freedom to associate with and speak as you want aren't given to you by a contract to be good, they are endowed upon you by nature and nature's God.

I'm not sure where you're from, but we have libel laws in America. We also have an Emolument Clause, forbidding any bestowing of entitlements and privileges. (Always take notice, the disconnect between Constitutionality and Legality, when you live in a people's government.) Democratic and republican governments - and Hitler's was democratic, whether we like him or not - will all ways fortify themselves from skeptics and critics, by sneaking the idea of protected peoples and entitled classes.

Before leaping on the next edgy, trendy bandwagon, pause and ask yourself, who watches the watchers? If you still think the People do, in this surveillance age, or you've got no clue why the question's important, you're out of your league suggesting freedom of speech is, "lyke, totalay overrated."

 

[Zoii]

Your basic assumption is head-over-heels wrong; governments do not secure freedom of associations and speech for their subjects,

Actually no government can and does legislate on the extent to which people can exercise their free speech right

A better question becomes, are limits on freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse?

It is but that isnt the thrust of the OP. Im using examples which can be applied in todays time of how speech is used to propagate injustices.

It was George Orwell who illustrated and stated in interviews, that for governments to get people to embrace the unacceptable, the first step is to create an enemy; a scapegoat. The genocide in Rwanda and the invasion of Iraq are examples of that.

Hitler's was democratic,

His government was a totalitarian government

Y

Before leaping on the next edgy, trendy bandwagon, pause and ask yourself, who watches the watchers? If you still think the People do, in this surveillance age, or you've got no clue why the question's important, you're out of your league suggesting freedom of speech is, "lyke, totalay overrated."

Why did you write this. Were you trying to belittle me and why? Is it because I am a teenager and therefore you felt mocking me would be Ok because perhaps you see me as an easy target?

I wrote this thread because of legitimate concerns I had and also prompted by discussions at school. I do not know what made you comment that Im writing this in order to be trendy. As to whats out of my league???... The day forum members want to stop contributors from asking questions is the day it ceases to be a forum, and certainly where it stops being christian.

 

[Zoii]

The nazi party used the power of the word to amplify attitudes towards Jews to the extent that unacceptable actions became acceptable. This forum is about that type of speech that culminated into a genocide. Some governments have placed legal limits on the use of free speech where it incites a criminal act, or is vilification of a race.

But it's also about the more mundane as well. Online bullying where trolls tell a teen to kill themselves is another example.

 

[Targaryen]

The nazi party used the power of the word to amplify attitudes towards Jews to the extent that unacceptable actions became acceptable. This forum is about that type of speech that culminated into a genocide. Some governments have placed legal limits on the use of free speech where it incites a criminal act, or is vilification of a race.

But it's also about the more mundane as well. Online bullying where trolls tell a teen to kill themselves is another example.

Well in cases like the Michelle Carter case, you can charge people with manslaughter when their actions led to the death of the person. But that's less a case of freedom of speech gone amok as it is intent to injure. Equating the mundane as you say it in such a slippery slope argument is pretty dangerous because when does the line start crossing into personal freedom?

 

[mercyfollowsme]

its paramount. FOS issues will always affect the church

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Countries that value and legally support fredom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

A good example is online, the concept of being genuine or just being yourself. A group may continue for a while like this and it is good. However, without limits, the group usually gets overrun by discordians that just like mocking things and trolling.
.
Another subject comes to mind, in the term "Freedom of Speech", what does "freedom" mean to Christians in contrast to the world? In summary, having consideration for others is part of what the bible defines as "liberty" ... though the secular application is basically doing and saying whatever the **** you want.
.
So in a sense, what "freedom" means may be the matter of dispute.

 

[Liza B.]

The nazi party used the power of the word to amplify attitudes towards Jews to the extent that unacceptable actions became acceptable. This forum is about that type of speech that culminated into a genocide. Some governments have placed legal limits on the use of free speech where it incites a criminal act, or is vilification of a race.

But it's also about the more mundane as well. Online bullying where trolls tell a teen to kill themselves is another example.

In America, it's not just a freedom of speech issue. In America our government was INTENDED to be very, very small in our lives. (Key word: intended). So the idea is that we should be monitoring and policing each other's speech, but the government should NOT. Here, the citizen is to be preeminent over the State.

Please note that the Constitution only addresses whether the *government* can punish you for speech, not whether your employer or private companies can monitor speech. Of course both can, and do.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In America, it's not just a freedom of speech issue. In America our government was INTENDED to be very, very small in our lives. (Key word: intended). So the idea is that we should be monitoring and policing each other's speech, but the government should NOT. Here, the citizen is to be preeminent over the State.

Please note that the Constitution only addresses whether the *government* can punish you for speech, not whether your employer or private companies can monitor speech. Of course both can, and do.

So, in your opinion, if a bunch of mean kids in school all decide to tell one slightly retarded kid he should commit suicide every day, and he finally does, there should be no prosecution for a crime here, instead we expect the kid to be able to stand up to such things?

 

[Hank77]

So, in your opinion, if a bunch of mean kids in school all decide to tell one slightly retarded kid he should commit suicide every day, and he finally does, there should be no prosecution for a crime here, instead we expect the kid to be able to stand up to such things?

The government cannot protect him, all they can do is prosecute after the damage has been done.What good does that do?
It's the responsibility of the every day people in his life to protect him.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The government cannot protect him, all they can do is prosecute after the damage has been done.What good does that do?
It's the responsibility of the every day people in his life to protect him.

But in that scenario, is it OK for the government to prosecute?