Re: NSA,Windows, etc.
From: Alan Mackenzie (none_at_example.invalid)
Date: 05/10/04
- Next message: Zax: "Re: Tired of the usenet spew?"
- Previous message: Alan Mackenzie: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- In reply to: Mxsmanic: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:24:46 +0000
[Followup-To: set]
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote on Fri, 07 May 2004 22:38:59 +0200:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>> How then, does one decide what is legitimate expression, what not?
> All expression is legitimate. However, if things occur that are bad
> and can be directly linked to prior expression, then one can prosecute
> or sue based on those things. The key is that freedom of expression
> must not be infringed by _prior_ restraint, that is, by preventing
> speech that _might_ have undesirable consequences.
Some things, if said, can cause irreperable damage not amenable to
restitution by court procedures. It is, in my view, legitimate to
restrain such speech.
>> I would say, it is _not_ legitimate to yell "fire!" in a crowded
>> theatre (unless, of course, it's true :-).
> Nothing prevents anyone from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And
> if yelling that has no harmful consequences, then that instance of
> expression is not actionable. If yelling fire has bad consequences,
> then it may be actionable on that basis, but only _if_ it has bad
> consequences and only _after_ the consequences have actually
> materialized. There is no prior restraint (censorship).
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre will always cause harm. At the very
least, some people will become alarmed and lose their enjoyment of what
they paid to see. At worst, people will get crushed to death in the
ensuing panic, or die from heart attacks.
>> Freedom of speech most emphatically does not mean the freedom to say
>> what you want, to whom you want, when you want.
> Sure it does. Of course, that doesn't mean that you are immune to any
> consequences that may arise. But freedom of speech means that you will
> never be prevented from saying something in advance simply because it
> _might_ have certain consequences.
That's a bit like saying you'll never be punished for firing a gun unless
you actually hit somebody. Sometimes it's not possible to prove (legally
or otherwise) that harm has been done. For example, breach of
confidence. I say, breach of confidence should sometimes be punishable,
whether damage from it can be demonstrated or not.
But "prevent"? All the laws and repression in the world have never
prevented anybody determined enough saying anything.
>> It means the freedom to express ideas and ideals in an appropriate
>> context.
In this sense, a playwright must not be prevented from writing "Fire!" in
his script (though he'd be somewhat foolish to do so). This is a
legitimate expression of an artistic idea.
I think you're saying there shouldn't be any intrinsic legal restraint on
what people may say, and they should only suffer punishment if what they
say _actually_ causes damage rather than might cause it. I have to
disagree.
-- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
- Next message: Zax: "Re: Tired of the usenet spew?"
- Previous message: Alan Mackenzie: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- In reply to: Mxsmanic: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
