I've lately thought that on Mon, 01 Mar 1999, Timothy Bates wrote:
>Randall Randall do say
>> I'd want *any* free speech allowed, even "Fire!" in a crowded
>> theater... Of course, this would always be covered by contract...
>If I say "fire" in a crowded theatre and 10 people are trampled to death, I
>am responsible and will be tried for manslaughter. I support that.
I don't. That it, saying this supposes that either I am responsible for others' actions, or that I have a default contract with everyone to supply only information I know is good. I think everyone is responsible for their own actions, *even if* they are verbally instructed to take some given action. Also, I do not believe that lying should be illegal, when it is not fraud (returning no value for value recieved.
>Let anyone say anything, is my motto. Except it turns out that I don't think
>people should be able to inject dangerous false information into a crowded
>theatre. Am I a hypocrite? I think not any more than i could defend myself
>against a murder charge if I fired the gun on voice command instead of
>pulling the trigger.
But this is so because the *gun* cannot be responsible, no?
>If you say "Bill, kill tim and I will give you 5 grand" that is a crime. Not
>because of the speech per se. but because of the contract it creates: a
>contract to initiate force. I support that.
>Is that a reasonable position: free speech = all speech which does not
>directly aid specific acts of violence?
It is reasonable, however, I think it wrong, as well.
>Food for thought:
>What is speech that it is free where action is not? When is speech action?
When it *causes* action, as in the voice-activated gun you proposed.
>Why are we not free to speak lies (that is libel)?
We should be. :)
-- Wolfkin. email@example.com | Libertarian webhost? www.freedomspace.net On a visible but distant shore, a new image of man; The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.-- Johnny Clegg.