No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. Do I really have to explain the concept? Saying that "I have it on clear authority that vacri & sillygoose are thieves; liars; adulterers; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; etc" is of itself not actionable, but if such libel can be adjudicated the cause of otherwise baseless abuse by society inflicted on vacri & sillygoose then yes I can be incarcerated as a danger to society.
Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
Honestly, I wouldn't be too upset if the ones who committed the abuse itself were the ones held responsible. The person who said that ctdonath is a predator has wronged you but the one who stabbed you because they thought you a predator is the criminal.
The consequences come down on both, one is a homicide the other is a case of manslaughter, both should be judged by the law, and punished if that's the judgement.
> No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof.
You do realize that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is not the kind with negative consequences for innocent bystanders, don't you? It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater.
The poster whom I responded to didn't seem aware of these distinctions, which is why I snarked at him.
> Do I really have to explain the concept?
No, you don't.
> Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
But I guess it's alright to have liars, crooks and wannabe-tyrants in there?
It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater.
I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof.
If there IS a fire, then by all means yell "fire!" accordingly.
I've twice seen Penn Jillette stand on stage before thousands, juggling flaming torches, pontificating loudly about and proceeding to yell "fire!"
I've seen the movie _Backdraft_ in a movie theater; there was much yelling of "fire!" therein.
And, of course, if you scare a crowd into a life-threatening stampede by yelling "fire!" when there isn't one, then you're culpable for any harm that follows.
All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
> I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof.
That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard, as I'm sure you're aware. So I can't see a reason to spend this much time discussing yelling "fire" in a theater.
> All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
I portrayed nothing of the sort. Here's what I originally said:
>> In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh?
But nevermind, we've probably wasted enough of each other's time here.
> That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard
This is the whole point of the discussion, right here. You're discriminating against a certain type of speech because you've judged it to be the wrong kind of speech. Once you've set a precedent that the wrong kind of speech can be infringed, you no longer have free speech - you have a struggle for the power to define allowed speech and disallowed speech.
It seems like you are unnecessarily conflating speech and the consequences of speech.
No false dichotomy, I didn't suggest that it's either crooks or those who "can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech".
The point was just that there are much more obvious problems with people in positions of power than not being able to distinguish with punishment for using one's vocal chords and punishment for whatever it caused.
The false dichotomy is that if one opposes one group one can't oppose the other. Or that if there are several bad things, drawing attention to one means approving another.
Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.