Free speech is just one of many rights that our modern
societies protect by law, and for those of us, like myself,
who belief deeply in the importance of maintaining this
right in its "purest fundamental form", and simultaneously
value reason, logic, and objectivity -- how do *WE* resolve
the conflicts that arise when we're confronted with the
"famous contradiction" of:
"BUT, YOU CANNOT YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER"
Many have attempted to invalidate this argument, but IMO
their attempts have utterly failed, because they only attack
the argument superficially. In the presentation that
follows, I intend to prove that there is no direct path from
the "implied cause" to the "implied tragedy", in fact, the
"implied tragedy" is merely a consequence of a greater flaw
in our collective human psychology, and *NOT* a direct
result of unfettered free speech.
So before we dissect the famous contradiction, and judge its
merits objectively, we need to define the "lines in the
sand". There are two competing opinions as to how speech
should be protected. The first is summarized as:
"SPEECH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, AND SINCE THE
INTERPRETATION OF SPEECH IS *SO* SUBJECTIVE THAT LIMITING
SPEECH BASED ON THE CONSEQUENCES THAT IT *MAY* PROVOKE IS
A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WILL ULTIMATELY DESTROY THE ENTIRE
CONCEPT -- SPEECH MUST NEVER BE LIMITED -- NOT IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM"
and the modified version as:
"YES, SPEECH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, BUT SOME FORMS OF
SPEECH ARE THE IMPETUS OF TRAGEDY, SO IN SPECIFIC
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST LIMIT SPEECH TO PROTECT THE GENERAL
PUBLIC"
The modified form argues (via the "famous contradiction")
that a pure interpretation of free speech presents two
possible consequences, and therefor must be limited because:
(1) YOU CANNOT ABUSE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO "DISTURB
THE PEACE".
In other words: you're an asshole and a coward, who is
hiding behind the protections of "free speech" to shield
yourself from the consequences of harassing innocent people.
However, the second implication is far more troubling
because its consequences are of the tragic variety:
(2) BY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER, YOU COULD SET
OFF A CHAIN REACTION OF FEAR THAT WILL RESULT IN THE
INJURY OR DEATH OF THEATER PATRONS, VIA TRAMPLING, AS THEY
ATTEMPT TO EXIT.
Both of these justifications speak of real life consequences
that can occur if we do not heed their warnings. In the
first implication, we have speech that harasses (a
nuisance), and in the second, speech that provokes (a cause
to action).
The first is easily defeated with the counter argument of:
"You have no right *NOT* to be offended", but the second is
not as easily defeated, because as we know, when humans
become overwhelmed with fear (for instance, the fear of
being burned alive), they will (generally speaking)
instinctively ignore their capacity for empathy and
compassion, and will instead, evoke the single-purposed
modality of self-preservation! This is how we end up with
gruesome tragedies where piles of people are cooked alive at
the exits of a building, when otherwise, they might have
escaped unscathed.
However, we need to ask ourselves the tough question: Who is
*ULTIMATELY* responsible for this tragedy? I implore you:
can words *alone* reach into our psyche and disable emotions
at will, causing us to loose our capacity to feel empathy
and compassion? Or cause our legs to become animated and our
feet to trample on the bodies of those who are less
physically agile than we, as though we were marionettes
dangling helplessly from the ends of strings manipulated by
malevolent beings who harbor a penchant for puppeteering
Greek Tragedy?
At what point do *WE* take responsibility for *OUR* actions
in this chain of tragic events? Can we solely blame the
asshole who yelled fire? Or must we look deep inside
ourselves and admit that, whilst yelling fire, when there is
no fire is indeed rude, abandoning compassion and trampling
our peers to death, simply to serve our own selfish goals,
might just be the ultimate form of rudeness!
The realization that, in order for the tragic consequences
of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to become reality,
not *ONLY* must the abuser of free speech make his false
statement, but the *ENTIRE* body of the theater must react
in an irrational and chaotic manner -- break *ONE* link of
the chain, and the tragedy is avoided!
So the premise that we should limit speech because "yelling
fire in a crowed theater" could result in tragedy,
incorrectly places *ALL* the blame on the asshole who did
nothing more than tell a lie. That's it, he told a lie! But
it ignores that the patrons are the *DIRECT* causation of
the injury and/or death -- the asshole is merely the
indirect cause.
This "famous contradiction" to free speech has
(historically) been so effective because it utilizes the
propagandic technique of tapping into pure emotion -- before
you have a chance to contemplate the validity of the claim,
emotion shortcuts the evaluation process -- in fact, the
same irrational fear that causes the theater patron's to
trample their peers to death, is harnessed and utilized
cunningly by the contradiction, to convince *YOU*, to
trample on the freedom of speech!
BUT RICK, WITHOUT THE LIE, THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS COULD
NEVER HAVE MANIFESTED!
True, not this *EXACT* chain of events, but when people
interact, the potential for irrational behavior, which
results in injury, is always a possibility. And we would be
naive to claim that "yelling fire in a crowed theater" is
the *ONLY* speech that could ever evoke a chaotic reaction.
In fact, there are *SO* many instances where speech could
cause irrational or chaotic responses, that to limit them
all would be tantamount to silencing the entire human race
forever.
But the rabbit hole goes much deeper!
Even though we have now exposed the weakness of this "famous
contradiction", and shattered it's emotional mechanism into
tiny shards with a giant hammer, we cannot celebrate,
because we must now face the cold reality that *WE* have
tolerated implicit forms of limited speech long before the
"famous contradiction" ever raised it's ugly head. Little
inconsistencies that are impossible to reconcile with a
belief that "speech must not be limited in any way shape or
form". And while we've managed to defeat the "famous
contradiction" today, we may find that the implicit gremlins
of which i speak, are much more difficult to slay.
Freedom of speech takes on many forms. We know that it
protects our opinions, and our dissents. It allows us to
object to our government policies without fear of reprisals,
and ridicule our leaders. And more generally, helps to
foster a marketplace of ideas that are free from the
tyrannical editing of malevolents. But have we considered
the impracticality of living in a world where free speech is
used as a justification to harass and to interrupt?
RICK, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS. YOU *DON'T* HAVE A RIGHT
TO NOT BE OFFENDED.
Being offended is one thing, but being harassed and impeded
is quite another! Suppose every time a group engaged in
conversation, a third, and unwelcome party, injected
themselves into the conversation, preventing the original
participants from communicating. Or suppose you are jogging
in the park, and some asshole that happens to disagree with
your political opinions, decides to hurl obscenities at you,
constantly!
Sure, there are public disturbance laws on the books, but by
preventing these vile creatures from speaking, we are
limiting their "unfettered right to free speech". We can't
have it both ways folks. Either we are willing to restrict
speech in *SOME* circumstances, or not restrict it at all.
But no matter how we may justify our position, limiting free
speech via "public nuisance" laws is limiting free speech.
Plain and simple.
How do we reconcile this?
No comments:
Post a Comment