8 ms·

This dogmatic/fundamentalist interpretation of freedom doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an ideologue. There are well-known and widely accepted exception

This dogmatic/fundamentalist interpretation of freedom doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an ideologue. There are well-known and widely accepted exceptions to freedom such as curbs on freedom of speech e.g. not yelling “fire” in a crowded space and inciting violence. There are trade-offs between freedom and curbs on freedoms (policies) that benefit the greater good of society. This is the so-called “social contract” between individuals and those that govern them. I highly recommend reading about this (e.g. even Wikipedia has a great explanation) and I don’t mean that as a condescending remark, I think it’s a fascinating topic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Edit: link

da_big_ghey 6y ago
The "fire in a crowded moviehouse" argument is really bad. Ken White (the Popehat guy) does a much better job of explaining this than I could: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- seanwilson 6y ago
  Could you sum up the relevance here briefly? I didn't find it clear and it's not a simple to sum up article. The link says: > People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Which seems to be the reason the quote was used and backs it up? So what's the problem?
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    Well it is a bait and switch. This is when one example for speech that is perceived as acceptable to censor is used to justify personal beliefs about other speech. "Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed". The claim that some speech is not protected is not the same as the claim that because of that some other particular speech is not protected. There has to be a fundamental similarity between two sets of circumstances such that they can both be prevented for the same reason. "Not all speech is protected, that is not in dispute, but the speech you're claiming isn't protected actually is" would be the problem.
    - seanwilson 6y ago
      The link was posted in response to: "This dogmatic/fundamentalist interpretation of freedom doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an ideologue. There are well-known and widely accepted exceptions to freedom such as curbs on freedom of speech e.g. not yelling “fire” in a crowded space and inciting violence. There are trade-offs between freedom and curbs on freedoms (policies) that benefit the greater good of society. " To use the "fire" example to make the point that there must be a line somewhere sounds fine to me. > "Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed". Who said that? Obviously you can't use the "fire" example to prove anything you want.
      - betwixthewires 6y ago
        It was an example. You were asking how the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was being misused and I gave an explanation, that it is an example that some speech is not protected, which is not in dispute, but is often used as justification for not protecting other, unrelated speech.
  - glenstein 6y ago
    Agreed, I had the exact same reaction as you did, and I even made a comment in this thread quoting the same part of the article that you quoted. Also, I share your sense of feeling like it would have been more constructive to summarize whatever the key argument is supposed to be and how it connects in this thread.
mikem170 6y ago
What happens when the social contract goes a bit off the rails, perhaps warped by those with power and influence? I guess these things don't last forever, because we don't live in a perfect world, right? Maybe sometimes people fight over this stuff, because it's worth fighting over.
- dkobran 6y ago
  By no means am I arguing that it can’t go off the rails nor am I arguing that it hasn’t in this case. I am responding to the claim that there are zero exceptions (“buts” in this case) to freedom. That is simply not the case and there is widespread agreement on many exceptions to certain freedoms that are a net benefit to society. We can (and will) debate the specifics of these issues and their trade offs for the rest of time. I’m pushing back on the notion that there is nothing to debate because any exception to freedom is somehow equivalent to tyranny. This assertion is wildly simplistic and does not represent the reality of freedom in the US if we’re discussing facts (actual polity).
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
Bringing up "Social contract" is a weak argument to people that don't believe in it.
- dkobran 6y ago
  Hmm I’m guessing that you are thinking of a different theory? Not believing in it in this case would mean not believing in any system of government which, I think we can say with a high degree of confidence, is not the case for most people in this thread. You do agree that we have surrendered our right to steal or to murder? Those are examples of an individual’s social contract with the state. If the answer is yes, than you believe in “social contract” theory.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > You do agree that we have surrendered our right to steal or to murder? Who has a right to steal or murder? Those are by definition violations of other people's rights.
    - dkobran 6y ago
      You have surrendered your natural right to steal or to commit murder--rights that you would possess devoid of a system of governance. These liberties you and others have sacrificed are exchanged for common security and self-preservation. Whether or not your rights are limited to protect other people's rights (or for some other purpose) is irrelevant. You are forced to abide by these restrictions because of the social contract between yourself and the government which creates and enforces these laws.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > You have surrendered your natural right to steal or to commit murder--rights that you would possess devoid of a system of governance. You don't possess the right to steal or murder, regardless of the existence or lack of a government. > These liberties you and others have sacrificed are exchanged for common security and self-preservation. I didn't "sacrifice" my "right" to murder someone because I never had such a right. > You are forced to abide by these restrictions because of the social contract between yourself and the government which creates and enforces these laws. People aren't forced to abide by these restrictions, they are punished for violating them. And they are punished because law enforcement has an interest in enforcing them, not because of any social fiction.

da_big_ghey 6y ago

The "fire in a crowded moviehouse" argument is really bad. Ken White (the Popehat guy) does a much better job of explaining this than I could: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

seanwilson 6y ago
Could you sum up the relevance here briefly? I didn't find it clear and it's not a simple to sum up article. The link says: > People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Which seems to be the reason the quote was used and backs it up? So what's the problem?
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  Well it is a bait and switch. This is when one example for speech that is perceived as acceptable to censor is used to justify personal beliefs about other speech. "Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed". The claim that some speech is not protected is not the same as the claim that because of that some other particular speech is not protected. There has to be a fundamental similarity between two sets of circumstances such that they can both be prevented for the same reason. "Not all speech is protected, that is not in dispute, but the speech you're claiming isn't protected actually is" would be the problem.
  - seanwilson 6y ago
    The link was posted in response to: "This dogmatic/fundamentalist interpretation of freedom doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an ideologue. There are well-known and widely accepted exceptions to freedom such as curbs on freedom of speech e.g. not yelling “fire” in a crowded space and inciting violence. There are trade-offs between freedom and curbs on freedoms (policies) that benefit the greater good of society. " To use the "fire" example to make the point that there must be a line somewhere sounds fine to me. > "Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed". Who said that? Obviously you can't use the "fire" example to prove anything you want.
    - betwixthewires 6y ago
      It was an example. You were asking how the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was being misused and I gave an explanation, that it is an example that some speech is not protected, which is not in dispute, but is often used as justification for not protecting other, unrelated speech.
- glenstein 6y ago
  Agreed, I had the exact same reaction as you did, and I even made a comment in this thread quoting the same part of the article that you quoted. Also, I share your sense of feeling like it would have been more constructive to summarize whatever the key argument is supposed to be and how it connects in this thread.

mikem170 6y ago

What happens when the social contract goes a bit off the rails, perhaps warped by those with power and influence? I guess these things don't last forever, because we don't live in a perfect world, right? Maybe sometimes people fight over this stuff, because it's worth fighting over.

dkobran 6y ago
By no means am I arguing that it can’t go off the rails nor am I arguing that it hasn’t in this case. I am responding to the claim that there are zero exceptions (“buts” in this case) to freedom. That is simply not the case and there is widespread agreement on many exceptions to certain freedoms that are a net benefit to society. We can (and will) debate the specifics of these issues and their trade offs for the rest of time. I’m pushing back on the notion that there is nothing to debate because any exception to freedom is somehow equivalent to tyranny. This assertion is wildly simplistic and does not represent the reality of freedom in the US if we’re discussing facts (actual polity).

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago

Bringing up "Social contract" is a weak argument to people that don't believe in it.

dkobran 6y ago
Hmm I’m guessing that you are thinking of a different theory? Not believing in it in this case would mean not believing in any system of government which, I think we can say with a high degree of confidence, is not the case for most people in this thread. You do agree that we have surrendered our right to steal or to murder? Those are examples of an individual’s social contract with the state. If the answer is yes, than you believe in “social contract” theory.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > You do agree that we have surrendered our right to steal or to murder? Who has a right to steal or murder? Those are by definition violations of other people's rights.
  - dkobran 6y ago
    You have surrendered your natural right to steal or to commit murder--rights that you would possess devoid of a system of governance. These liberties you and others have sacrificed are exchanged for common security and self-preservation. Whether or not your rights are limited to protect other people's rights (or for some other purpose) is irrelevant. You are forced to abide by these restrictions because of the social contract between yourself and the government which creates and enforces these laws.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > You have surrendered your natural right to steal or to commit murder--rights that you would possess devoid of a system of governance. You don't possess the right to steal or murder, regardless of the existence or lack of a government. > These liberties you and others have sacrificed are exchanged for common security and self-preservation. I didn't "sacrifice" my "right" to murder someone because I never had such a right. > You are forced to abide by these restrictions because of the social contract between yourself and the government which creates and enforces these laws. People aren't forced to abide by these restrictions, they are punished for violating them. And they are punished because law enforcement has an interest in enforcing them, not because of any social fiction.