So...you're saying fraud and defamation are perfectly fine, because the freedom of speech trumps them.

No, they’re completely immoral and unethical acts.

The “fire in a crowded theater” analogy was used by Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes to jail those who were protesting the draft of American soldiers into world war 1. The analogy was used to describe a scenario in which speech created “a clear and present danger”. He too believed speech could cause them losing the war, and any censor will use such claims as they always have (corrupting the youth, for example). At any rate, there was nothing legally binding in that analogy, never described any actual crime, and his “clear and present danger” principle was eventually overturned in the 1960’s. So if American first amendment jurisprudence is your governing principle, you’re a little out of date. Defamation is a civil wrong, or otherwise a state issue, not a federal crime. If there is a certain state standard which we ought to apply, it would be nice to hear which one.

That being said the American standard is the only standard that has any argument worth defending, and for that you hold a higher more enlightened ground than anyone else here. Thank you for that.

If the pen is mightier than the sword then let’s watch a duel, one man with a sword, one man with a pen. But as we know it’s all metaphorical. As philosophers I believe we ought to approach the actual. My only contention is that if speech is a fundamental rights, which I believe it is, it ought not be blamed for things it is incapable of doing.

Never?

You and your five sprinting friends are at the track at the starting line. Someone says, “On your marks…Get set….”

What act would follow someone yelling “Go!” at that moment? Nothing? Because acts are not the consequences of speech? Or would running and racing be the consequence of that little speech?

Have you never seen anyone “jump the gun”? If someone leaves before “go” is yelled, is that a consequence of that little speech? No. Running is the consequence of the runner, not the speech.

Oddly enough Berkeley is considered a nominalist.

For nominalism abstract terms and generalities are useful fictions, namely, “names” (hence the word nominalism). In that respect they serve a useful purpose.

But if someone kills another for some the sake of some name like “country” or “God”, then we have an instance of destroying what is boundlessly more valuable for the sake of an idea or figment. This, I fear, is the threat of realism.

I brought the issue of fraud and libel to NOS4A2 in another thread, and he never responded to those points. I'm curious in any free-speech absolutist will try and rebut anything you said.

Easily. Acts are not the consequences of speech. I’ve argued this point numerous times, to no avail.

Does it? They certainly exist as ideas.

Ideas are often considered abstract objects.

And this of course exactly not Ockham's idea (as I understand it).

Interesting topic, but could you clarify just what the - your - question is?

People sometimes lay the blame for the state of the world at the feet of some philosopher and his philosophy, as I tried to show. Though I think this is erroneous, metaphysics ought to inform one’s politics, ethics, and so on. If nominalism or realism informs the way one treats others and the world, which is the greater threat to others and the world?

I'm not sure if this makes much sense as a critique. A lot of realism is extremely person centered and sees a strong telos at work in history (the history of particulars). Valuing particulars is not really what is at stake.

Actually, I think some realists attack nominalists precisely for destroying particulars and turning them into a formless "will soup." Note that personalism and phenomenology seems to be biggest in traditional Christian philosophy, which tends to be unrelentingly realist.

Then why in your opinion would Pierce describe nominalism as “the dreary outlook upon a world in which all that can be loved, or admired, or understood is figment”, when the figments in question are universals and abstractions? What is it about the world that changes for the realist without universals and abstractions and forms?

Axios has leaked the Robert Hur audio, the interview tapes of Biden trying to explain away how he had stolen classified documents over the course of his political career. Hur went on to say that they wouldn't prosecute him because a jury would see him as "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory".

https://www.axios.com/2025/05/16/biden-hur-tape-special-counsel-audio

But the fact that one can steal classified documents and get away with it for being too stupid isn't the whole of the scandal. A battery of propagandists set out to deceive the public.

The former president’s halting responses to questions by a special counsel show him exactly as a majority of Americans believed him to be — and as Democrats repeatedly insisted he was not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/us/politics/biden-hur-audio-interview.html

A recent prostate cancer diagnosis raises further questions. Was his clean bill of health a coverup? Why did Garland refuse to release the tape even though Congress subpoenaed it? Perhaps the Big Lie was just a smoke screen for a bigger concern: who the hell was running the country? Congress should act before Biden passes. I wager the answers would lead to treason territory and one of the greatest scandals in American history.

There appears to be some headway. Who will pooh-pooh it first?

More business in the Middle East confirmed.

-An agreement for Qatar Airways’ purchase of Boeing aircraft. Trump said the agreement is for more than 160 jets worth over $200bn.

- A range of defence agreements, including a letter of intent on defence cooperation and a letter of offer and acceptance for MQ-9B unmanned aerial vehicles.

- A joint declaration of cooperation between the two states.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2025/5/14/donald-trump-live-president-to-lift-syria-sanctions-heads-to-qatar-next

And I can’t wait to see the flying palace gifted to the United States from Qatar. The meltdowns and peace in the Middle East is worth it.

Meanwhile, what are Euro leaders doing?

“Joe Biden's physical deterioration was so severe in 2023 and 2024 that advisers privately discussed the possibility he'd need to use a wheelchair if he won re-election, CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson write in their new book, "Original Sin," out May 20”.

https://www.axios.com/2025/05/13/biden-book-wheelchair-2024-campaign-original-sin

It’s pretty wild how Biden supporters were routinely lied to, and his health deterioration was covered up by the captured press for half of Biden’s presidency. The lies only fell apart just last June. Why did everyone believe it for so long?

Big, consequential stories last week that the anti-Trump refuse to mention. Trump brokered cease-fire in India/Pakistan. Last known American hostage in Gaza released. Trump brokered peace’s talks between Ukraine and Russia. Executive order to slash prices of prescription drugs. China trade agreement. Big trip to Middle East, championing peace and prosperity. He’s done more in a week than most presidents and leaders do in 4 years.

Stagflation, eh? Inflation hit the lowest levels in 4 years last month. Is that a consequence of Whitehouse policies?

The anti-Trump brigade says Trump "blinked" on China (the use of the same word among a sect indicates a social contagion), and siding with The Party, cheering for their win, and reiterating their propaganda has become the norm. Except the stakes seem much higher for China.

China's vast factory sector was already bearing the brunt of the tariffs. "The International Monetary Fund, Goldman Sachs and UBS all recently revised down their economic growth forecasts for China over 2025 and into 2026, citing the impact of U.S. tariffs - none of them expect the economy to hit Beijing's official growth target."

Discerning the state of China's economy is increasingly difficult because of the disappearance of Chinese economic data over the last couple of years. The last of that data indicates that China was already dealing with some difficulties.







Given that this data is still missing, and the Politburo has little to brag about, one can assume that it hasn't gotten much better over there. Recent strikes and protests and factory closures further indicate that it hasn't. The pivot to selling goods on social media further indicates it hasn't. And a recent liquidity injection indicates an opponent on the ropes.

So Trump "blinked"?

While much is made about America’s eventual descent into authoritarianism, fascism, or whatever, the UK is already there saving a seat. I’m curious why the anti-Trump crowd doesn’t seem to care, but if Trump makes a post on truth social it’s world news.

Retired police officer arrested over ‘thought crime’ tweet

Pensioner held after Palestinian march post on social media, with ‘Brexity’ books in his home scrutinised

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/?ICID=continue_without_subscribing_reg_first

It looks like the Trump team has facilitated ceasefire negotiations between Pakistan and India. The comments of all involved are available on X, but we’re not allowed to post those kinds of facts here.

The leads me to wonder: “what the hell is every other leader in the world doing?” No one else stepped in? Where’s the Davos crowd?

That’s hilarious, especially since Congress has been late with their budget resolution for 30 of the past 49 fiscal years. So it looks like we have another instance of you making mountains out of democrat mole hills, using Congress as your bell-weather. That’s understandable, as any small instance that might cast shade on Kash’s work needs to be magnified in order to support your theory that Patel is incompetent and the FBI will collapse. So here is your first piece of evidence, magnified as it is by congressional play-acting: a late budget request.

(It was a senate hearing, but same shit)

I already know that one of the biggest fears of Trump’s opponents is that a reality TV host and his rag-tag band of Fox News employees, children’s book authors, and private business men will do a better job than their over-educated bureaucrats and life-long politicians. The more their past is mocked the better because it makes their victories all the more sweet.

Meanwhile, me waiting for a ssu prediction to come true:

The brain states of listeners. You could read up on speech perception for more technical information on the physics of neural activity responding to auditory stimulation.

Unless you believe that the mind is some non-physical substance that can somehow gain information from sound without being causally affected by it?

I do believe in biology. Brain states and mind? Not so much, though I do not begrudge their application in common use.

I’m fully aware that humans recognize and understand speech and language. My only contention is that the listener is the cause of his listening, his understanding, and his reaction to language. The speaker is unable to cause those acts because each act has its genesis in the listener, not in the speaker.

As an example, the hairs in the ear tranduce the mechanical stimulus of a sound wave of speech into a nerve impulse, as it does all sounds. The words do not transduce themselves. But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

The human body is not a Rube Goldberg machine and listening and understanding and reacting to speech is not a passive act. So though I would concede that someone can affect another’s eardrums with speech, like any other wave of sound, the cause of all later acts is the listener.

It’s an adjective.

My sense of self is generated by my neural activities. This sense of self vanishes when I am in a dreamless sleep or in a coma or under general anaesthesia or dead.

My genes reside in my cells. They are not "me" or my sense of self.

My experiences are subjective, and only I have first-person access to them. Just as your experiences are subjective, and only you have first-person access to them.

Are none of these of your own unique biology, as it exists through space and time?

I should think that even a free speech absolutist would understand that your speech can cause things to happen.

What substances or objects can you move with your speech? What phases of matter can you affect with your voice, your words, or any other symbolic communication? Personally I can’t think of any, save for the measurable, like the expelling of breath, the movement of sound waves, or the scratching of ink into paper. If you can mention any I’m willing to test it out and I’ll report back with my findings. Cheers.

We are not our genes. We are not our experiences. Our genes precede us. They contain the blueprint for our construction. Our environments allow us to live. If I were abducted by aliens and left stranded in the vacuum of space, I would die. My homeostasis depends on the environment I am in. Our nutrients are the building blocks e.g. protein that make us. Our experiences shape our neural pathways.

Try to point to your genes and experiences. What else in the universe besides yourself are you pointing at?

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences don't merely influence our choices. They determine our choices, and they constrain our choices.

We are our genes. We are our experiences. So if genes and experiences determine our choices, then we determine our choices.

Nutrients and environments may have certain effects on our biology, but they cannot determine our choices because at no point do they control the sensory-motor architecture of our bodies.

I do not think there is any good censorship just as I do not think there is any good prohibition on drinking water or falling in love. Speaking or otherwise communicating is a basic, non-violent act that humans require to live and enjoy living.

The fact is that Popper and other philosophers of his time recognized through what happened in 1930s Germany, freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand. It was part of a powerful toolset of reprogramming a population's core beliefs and it's still a powerful tool today when the way its used isn't recognized.

So when we speak about freedom of speech absolutism, its history and the philosophy around that subject, that's not an attack on your personal beliefs, it's a deconstruction of the subject. When you lash out in the way you do, that just perfectly shows us the cognitive dissonance at play. The inability to form a proper argument, the constant emotional, arrogant and childish bully-speak... how can anyone take you seriously when that's the level you operate on? If you're unable to form an actual argument and just attack, you're shown you are unable to discuss this topic further and only operate on the low-quality level that this forum have rules against

Weimar Germany had very advanced speech laws and the Nazis were censored on many occasions. Numerous Nazi and other publications were shut down. Hitler himself was banned from speaking publicly for several years in many parts of Germany.

“He alone of two billion people on Earth may not speak in Germany”, said Goebbels of Hitler in his propaganda posters. He used the censorship of the Nazis as propaganda to great effect. Hitler used his persecution as justification to persecute others, to abuse the very same laws used against him in order to suppress his political opponents. Goebbels was sued for libel by Jewish organizations and the chief of police. Julius Streicher was imprisoned and his anti-Jewish publication Der Sturmer was routinely shut down. So it just isn’t the case that “freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand”. It was censorship all the way down.

How have I abused my position? You obeyed, so I didn't punish you, and I might not have even threatened to punish you for disobeying. The only thing I've done is uttered the phrase "throw Trump in prison". You may (correctly or incorrectly) believe that you would be punished for disobeying, but I haven't done or said anything to that effect.

I don’t believe that, nor do I know why anyone would. There is a chain of command, and an expectation that subordinates follow their superior’s orders. All involved are aware of the chain of command, and all involved are aware of the repercussions should the subordinate violate it.

Let’s not equivocate between acts of speech and speech acts. Uttering the phrase isn’t the only thing you’ve done.

So this doesn't work unless you want to say that, by virtue of my position, the very utterance "throw Trump in prison" is the abuse of power and ought be punished, in which case you accept the principle that some speech acts ought be restricted, even if the restriction depends both on content and the relative "positions" of the speaker and the audience (whereas others might think that content alone is sufficient).

I don’t think the utterance is the abuse of power and ought to be punished. If you uttered the same phrase, but were joking or being sarcastic, then that expectation to follow orders might be absent, and in that case the command need not be followed; therefore no one is harmed. If the illocutionary act was a “directive”, under the assumption that one ought not violate his chain of command, then everyone ought to be aware of that before they begin to even think of punishment.

Admittedly “abuse of power” doesn’t outline any real crime. I guess it's just a political term of art. That’s why I believe the only “punishment” for that specific act ought to be decided at the ballot box.

There's not always the exchange of money, it might only be the promise of money, and surely a promise is just a speech-act? But there might not even be a promise; there might simply be a request of one friend to another. If I beg John to kill my wife, and he does, ought I be punished?

No, I do not think you ought to be punished in this instance because you made no obligation to John and did not help him with the planning or execution of the act.

You question the physics of my words inciting you to commit a crime but don't question the physics of some nebulous "dynamic" between me and you inciting you to commit a crime? That doesn't seem very consistent.

Surely if your fear of being punished by me "compels" you to commit a crime then that's entirely the responsibility of you and your psychology.

In my defense it’s difficult to explain. By “dynamic” I mean hierarchical relationship with expectations.

Absolutely if my fear of being punished compels me to commit the crime, then that is my responsibility—I could have done otherwise— but you are guilty of something like abusing your position. The point is, other reasons besides the speech and act of speaking convinces one to commit the crime.

I think they’re guilty of doing what you described, but for different reasons. Speaking or instructing is not the criminal act and the reasons those acts are evil.

The officer’s who carry out arrests due to a superior’s orders have to obey or face repercussion. It’s that dynamic, not the words, that convinces him to follow those orders. The superior ought not to abuse that power and the officer ought not to follow those orders. If I were to try to persuade or convince or encourage the officers to arrest my political opponents using the exact same instructions, but without the power to threaten his employment, the officer wouldn’t listen to me and would probably laugh in my face. Exact same words and instructions, but two different results. Why? Because It’s not the words or the fact of speaking that convinces an officer to follow such orders.

Hiring someone to kill your wife in exchange for cash has a similar component. If you made the exact same request but didn’t exchange any cash, the contract killer wouldn’t kill. The exact same request, but one does not convince. Why? The exchange of money, not the request, is the reason a contract killer would kill your wife.

Then you're simply ignoring the other half, given your objection below this is entirely hollow.

What other half would that be?

That is, roughly, the point. We do this with mentally incapacitated people. What's the difference in your eyes?

One is mentally incapacitated, the other is not.

All stimuli do. Words are stimuli. This is obvious biological fact.

All soundwaves are stimuli. Soundwaves stimulate the ear drum, and that’s about where their work ends. It is the listener who tranduces that stimuli into other forms of energy for the purposes of listening, understanding, etc.

Then I guess you can just choose to never be angry, upset, pining or any other uncomfortable emotion then. Nice.

I’m human. But human emotion begins and ends in the human being, with his biology—genetics, brain chemistry, hormones, blood pressure etc.—being the direct cause.

I understand I’m stubborn on this issue, so thanks for putting up with it and giving me a fair shake.

Ukraine and US sign minerals deal. It’s crazy how quickly things are happening in the last few months where the entire world, with all its effete moral posturing, faltered for the last few years. Let’s hope this is a step towards ending this war and not towards beginning a new one.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypw7pn9q3o.amp

Can you make it explicitly clear why you think this does not obtain?

I’m not speaking about law. Law is often wrong. It’s punishable by death to practice sorcery in Saudi Arabia, for example. There are entire literatures on it.

I’m speaking about physics and biology. At least your link makes a decent attempt to square the circle. He says correctly that the incitee’s mental state causes him to commit the action. In other words, he causes himself to commit the action.

But for some reason he adds in another step, more magical thinking and figurative language: the inciter causes beliefs and emotions to arise in the incitee, completely removing the autonomy of the listener. The inciter causes that mental state. How? What’s the causal chain? Do the words swirl around in the head and push a bunch of buttons in the brain?

Sorry. Not good enough. The only cause and source of beliefs and emotions is the one who holds them.

No argument just synonyms. People can be spurred to action by another's words. If you want to deny that you are either stupid or dishonest.

There you go using another synonym. You’re incapable of showing cause and effect, hiding behind figurative language.

Spur, a spiked metal implement worn on the heel to goad a horse. No one is spurring another to do anything unless someone is using spurs on another.

Presenting etymologies and alternative words is not an argument.

The argument, which you dodged, is below the etymologies and alternative words. Avoiding the issue is not a counter argument; it’s a fallacy.

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing.

The term “incite” comes from Latin, “incitare”, meaning “to put into rapid motion”. It’s a member of a class of words that has a literal beginning, explainable by physics, but gains a figurative sense over the course of its life they are used unscientifically and in superstitious cultures to explain how words can physically move people.

Another example would be to “stir”, which meant literally “to move”, as in stirring food with one’s hand.

Another one would be to “rouse”, which began as a technical hunting term for hawking, literally “to shake the feathers of the body”.

There is nothing wrong with speaking figuratively. But when figurative language is taken literally and is used to make literal acts illegal, that’s a problem. The fact remains: one cannot put into rapid motion, move, or shake the feathers of another’s body with words.

Pretty funny.

Man arrested in theft of DHS chief Kristi Noem's purse is in the U.S. illegally, official says

The suspect who was arrested Saturday in the theft of Secretary Kristi Noem’s purse is in the country illegally, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia said in an interview with NBC News.

Ed Martin said a second suspect who also is in the country illegally is being sought by law enforcement.

It is not believed the suspect targeted Noem because she was the Department of Homeland Security secretary, Martin said.

“There is no indication it was because of that. It was frankly, it was a nice looking purse,” Martin said, in a recorded telephone interview.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/man-believed-stolen-dhs-chief-kristi-noems-purse-custody-rcna203176

Given that Biden’s immigration surge was the largest in US history, and 60% of all that was illegal immigration, Americans are enduring the effects of an odd phenomenon we find common among Trump’s opponents, virtue signalling into disaster.

It’s a form of virtue signalling, but the effects of that act of virtue signalling are often catastrophic, or even deadly. It’s like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. In this case, it was that Biden and his 2020 campaign team were so offended by Trump’s immigration policies during his first term, that they swung the door wide open, ruining the lives not only of Americans, but the illegals that made the journey holding firm to Biden’s promises, which of course he finally reneged in order to win the election of 2024. Now everyone must deal with the conditions he created.

Very true. It’s enough to know what another thinks, and then one can at least make an informed decision about whether to deal with them or not.

Yeah, but I think it’s a fine line between censorship and self-defense. To me, I don’t think it’s censorship qua censorship to fight back against a censorial mob who only wish to stop you from speaking. I think that counts as opposing violence rather than censoring them. They wish to deny you of some fundamental freedoms, and at the same time deny freedoms to those who wish to hear you.

I’m not sure if Popper is libertarian or anarchist enough to believe in the principle of equal freedom, but to me, once that principle is violated, all bets are off. I think the paradox of tolerance presupposes such a principle.

But then again he was also writing around the time of world war 2.

And let's see if we get the drone war against the Mexican Cartels or US strikes on Iran. All what you wanted so much when voting for Trump.

“Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-nuclear.html

Believe it or not, the Weimar Republic had very advanced hate speech laws, and the Nazis were routinely suppressed and banned, many of them jailed.

In free speech literature, the notion that if only there were hate speech laws to counter the Nazis, the holocaust might not have happened, is a fallacy.It’s known as the Weimar Fallacy.

https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/would-censorship-have-stopped-rise-nazis-part-16-answers

Chomsky makes a similar argument. He says that the reason there is no real threat of fascism in America is that there is free speech. While in Europe fascism and holocaust denial is taken seriously, and routinely banned, in America holocaust deniers are allowed to distribute their literature with little to no censorship, and as a result their ideas just aren’t taken seriously.

Fair point and good objection. I think Popper was largely talking about reactionary violence, where they “answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”. Suppressing their intolerant philosophies would be “most unwise”, but one ought to fight back if violence occurs.

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that “cancel culture” fell into that camp. I say this because speakers are often shouted down, or there are bomb threats, swatting, vandalism, even violence etc. though I may be mixing up my terms. I’m not even sure “cancel culture” is an actual phenomenon, to be honest.