From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:52:43 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Aug31.160640.23258@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.090054.15897@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>Actually, I think it's silly to argue that speech, ideas and expressions
>>never harm anybody.  They do.  Constantly.

>   I don't agree with this. It is my belief that 'words' cannot cause harm
>by thier very nature.

>   In order to say that words can cause harm, there must be something about
>the specific words in question that can be identified. The content of the
>speech much contain the harmful entity.
>   Consider the oft quoted '"fire" in a theater' example. Certainly here is
>an example where speech is harmful, right? I don't think so. I think that
>the content (and therefore the speech) is unimportant, and that the crime
>is causing a panic, and not some aspect of illegal speech. It wouldn't
>matter if I had shouted 'poison gas' or some other uniformly understood
>threat. Or it could be specific to the audience. Shout 'Iguana' in a room
>packed with the annual meeting of Lizard-phobes, and you'll create the same
>effect.
>   My point is that since you can't distingush between the effect of
>'fire', 'poison gas', and 'iguana', it is not the speech (the content of
>the speech) that is at fault. The actual words do not matter.

All you're arguing is that the context in which the words are uttered matter.
This is nothing new, and hardly something that can be disagreed with.
If I smelled smoke in my house and shouted fire - that's a good thing -
it'll save lives.  But if, for the hell of it, I shouted fire in a crowded
theatre, it'll take lives.  Of course.  And I don't think you'd disagree
that *one* of these usages should be subject to criminal prosecution.

The laws we're talking about here aren't simply against a particular set
of words strung together in a specific order, they're aimed at preventing
(or punishing) speech that is *likely* to cause non-trivial harm.  Where
"likely" and "non-trivial" are both subject to "beyond a reasonable
doubt" tests by a jury and are required for a conviction.

The laws we're discussing are actually anti-incitement legislation buried
under verbiage that, for the most part, prevents the laws being used
against political speech.

>   I believe that it is merely difficult to see a separation between the
>words, and the events of a certain time.

Which is why the context and likely outcome matters, not just the words alone.

>If words are to be harmful, then
>they must remain harmful at least as long as human civilization remains
>applicable to them.

Yes.  So?

>But we see words loosing thier 'harm' much quicker than tanks, rifles, or
>nuclear weapons.

Do we?  The KKK (to name just one example) has been around longer than two
of the above three, and it doesn't show any signs of becoming extinct soon.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing