Would you agree that protecting the unlimited expression of ideas includes ideas held by a minority? Say, for example, people who like the idea of being free to shout 'fire' in a theatre?
What kind of question is this? It doesn't even make sense.
It doesn't matter if the idea is held by a minority or a majority. People can express themselves however they wish. The only time you can't is if your expression is in and of itself harmful.
For example, interpretive dance is a form of expression. People's freedoms to do interpretive dances should not be limited. However, an interpretive dance in the middle of a busy street, or blocking a sidewalk, in and of itself creates a dangerous situation. An interpretive dance involving a live firearm, which may very well indeed be a valid artistic expression, is in and of itself dangerous and prohibited. Musical expression is permitted, but music that is so loud that it will deafen people is dangerous. Shouting fire in certain situations will cause many people to panic, and will create a dangerous situation.
People can express themselves however they wish. The only time you can't is if your expression is in and of itself harmful.
How can you be so certain in anticipating that what you uttered will necessarily be harmful? Language is flawed. Take the gun as the 'signifier' (a wonderfully phallic linguistic image). The 'gun' as wielded in an interpretive dance is somehow 'uncontrolled' and 'dangerous'. Why? (Interpretive dance in and of itself is an interesting choice.) For example, policemen walk the streets every day in control of live firearms. They are mobile. And in unpredictable situations. This has become an acceptable part of our lives, one that we choose to enforce, rather than prohibit. So my question is, how can we draw such neat lines around what is 'acceptable' and 'safe' and what is 'harmful' and should therefore be prohibited? Is life that neat? I don't think so.
No it's not, but in order to function as a society, we need to draw lines somewhere. If you want to get really reductionist with your thinking, just go straight to solipsism. Once you realize that you can't have an effective society based solely on solipsism, you realize that you have to draw lines somewhere. That's how science works; nothing is ever truly known completely, we just know things enough to go with it. It's impractical to live life entirely in grey, as you'll be too crippled with indecision to function.
You are technically correct in that all laws are subject to debate, and any limits we place on liberty are necessarily arbitrary. Here's my challenge: so what? The limits we have in place are necessary evils.
Yo gents. I wanted to ask you about the music camp thing you mentioned. You said that your teacher, named Mitter, told you to go. Would that happen to be Tom Mitter? Did he have have a mustache, and say funky stuff (i.e. Frogs Hairs, and other odd sayings)?
Comments
It doesn't matter if the idea is held by a minority or a majority. People can express themselves however they wish. The only time you can't is if your expression is in and of itself harmful.
For example, interpretive dance is a form of expression. People's freedoms to do interpretive dances should not be limited. However, an interpretive dance in the middle of a busy street, or blocking a sidewalk, in and of itself creates a dangerous situation. An interpretive dance involving a live firearm, which may very well indeed be a valid artistic expression, is in and of itself dangerous and prohibited. Musical expression is permitted, but music that is so loud that it will deafen people is dangerous. Shouting fire in certain situations will cause many people to panic, and will create a dangerous situation.
That's really all there is to it.
Yes the question does make sense. How can you be so certain in anticipating that what you uttered will necessarily be harmful? Language is flawed. Take the gun as the 'signifier' (a wonderfully phallic linguistic image).
The 'gun' as wielded in an interpretive dance is somehow 'uncontrolled' and 'dangerous'. Why? (Interpretive dance in and of itself is an interesting choice.) For example, policemen walk the streets every day in control of live firearms. They are mobile. And in unpredictable situations. This has become an acceptable part of our lives, one that we choose to enforce, rather than prohibit.
So my question is, how can we draw such neat lines around what is 'acceptable' and 'safe' and what is 'harmful' and should therefore be prohibited? Is life that neat? I don't think so.
Grey areas. That's really all there is to it.
You are technically correct in that all laws are subject to debate, and any limits we place on liberty are necessarily arbitrary. Here's my challenge: so what? The limits we have in place are necessary evils.