Item — HN Reader

This dogmatic/fundamentalist interpretation of freedom doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an ideologue. There are well-known and widely accepted exceptions to freedom such as curbs on freedom of speech e.g. not yelling “fire” in a crowded space and inciting violence. There are trade-offs between freedom and curbs on freedoms (policies) that benefit the greater good of society. This is the so-called “social contract” between individuals and those that govern them. I highly recommend reading about this (e.g. even Wikipedia has a great explanation) and I don’t mean that as a condescending remark, I think it’s a fascinating topic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Edit: link

3 comments

The "fire in a crowded moviehouse" argument is really bad. Ken White (the Popehat guy) does a much better job of explaining this than I could: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Could you sum up the relevance here briefly? I didn't find it clear and it's not a simple to sum up article.

The link says:

> People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute.

Which seems to be the reason the quote was used and backs it up? So what's the problem?

Agreed, I had the exact same reaction as you did, and I even made a comment in this thread quoting the same part of the article that you quoted.

Also, I share your sense of feeling like it would have been more constructive to summarize whatever the key argument is supposed to be and how it connects in this thread.

Well it is a bait and switch. This is when one example for speech that is perceived as acceptable to censor is used to justify personal beliefs about other speech.

"Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed". The claim that some speech is not protected is not the same as the claim that because of that some other particular speech is not protected. There has to be a fundamental similarity between two sets of circumstances such that they can both be prevented for the same reason. "Not all speech is protected, that is not in dispute, but the speech you're claiming isn't protected actually is" would be the problem.

The link was posted in response to:

"This dogmatic/fundamentalist interpretation of freedom doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an ideologue. There are well-known and widely accepted exceptions to freedom such as curbs on freedom of speech e.g. not yelling “fire” in a crowded space and inciting violence. There are trade-offs between freedom and curbs on freedoms (policies) that benefit the greater good of society. "

To use the "fire" example to make the point that there must be a line somewhere sounds fine to me.

> "Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed".

Who said that? Obviously you can't use the "fire" example to prove anything you want.

It was an example. You were asking how the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was being misused and I gave an explanation, that it is an example that some speech is not protected, which is not in dispute, but is often used as justification for not protecting other, unrelated speech.

What happens when the social contract goes a bit off the rails, perhaps warped by those with power and influence? I guess these things don't last forever, because we don't live in a perfect world, right? Maybe sometimes people fight over this stuff, because it's worth fighting over.

By no means am I arguing that it can’t go off the rails nor am I arguing that it hasn’t in this case. I am responding to the claim that there are zero exceptions (“buts” in this case) to freedom. That is simply not the case and there is widespread agreement on many exceptions to certain freedoms that are a net benefit to society. We can (and will) debate the specifics of these issues and their trade offs for the rest of time. I’m pushing back on the notion that there is nothing to debate because any exception to freedom is somehow equivalent to tyranny. This assertion is wildly simplistic and does not represent the reality of freedom in the US if we’re discussing facts (actual polity).

Bringing up "Social contract" is a weak argument to people that don't believe in it.

Hmm I’m guessing that you are thinking of a different theory? Not believing in it in this case would mean not believing in any system of government which, I think we can say with a high degree of confidence, is not the case for most people in this thread. You do agree that we have surrendered our right to steal or to murder? Those are examples of an individual’s social contract with the state. If the answer is yes, than you believe in “social contract” theory.

> You do agree that we have surrendered our right to steal or to murder?

Who has a right to steal or murder? Those are by definition violations of other people's rights.

You have surrendered your natural right to steal or to commit murder--rights that you would possess devoid of a system of governance. These liberties you and others have sacrificed are exchanged for common security and self-preservation. Whether or not your rights are limited to protect other people's rights (or for some other purpose) is irrelevant. You are forced to abide by these restrictions because of the social contract between yourself and the government which creates and enforces these laws.

> You have surrendered your natural right to steal or to commit murder--rights that you would possess devoid of a system of governance.

You don't possess the right to steal or murder, regardless of the existence or lack of a government.

> These liberties you and others have sacrificed are exchanged for common security and self-preservation.

I didn't "sacrifice" my "right" to murder someone because I never had such a right.

> You are forced to abide by these restrictions because of the social contract between yourself and the government which creates and enforces these laws.

People aren't forced to abide by these restrictions, they are punished for violating them. And they are punished because law enforcement has an interest in enforcing them, not because of any social fiction.

> You don't possess the right to steal or murder, regardless of the existence or lack of a government.

You absolutely do, because nothing is preventing you from doing so. Maybe you are referring to a moral right? We are discussing legal rights. These don't exist without a system of governance.

> I didn't "sacrifice" my "right" to murder someone because I never had such a right.

Absent of any political order, who is to say what rights you have or don't have? This is the entire point of government and the social contract. It is a universal and mutually agreed on pact, which takes the form of an exchange of certain individual rights for protection of other rights, that critically, everyone must abide by and that maximize the well-being and security of everyone. It formalizes which universal rights exist and also what limitations exist. This system is what dictates your rights.

> You are forced to abide by these restrictions because of the social contract between yourself and the government which creates and enforces these laws.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this. No, governments do not literally / physically force you to stop speaking in the case of your freedom of speech. Being "forced to" in this context would mean being compelled to abide by the laws of society. This relationship defines the social contract that you, and everyone else in society, has entered into with the ruling authority/government.

> You absolutely do, because nothing is preventing you from doing so.

Lack of obstruction is not the same as a right.

> Maybe you are referring to a moral right? We are discussing legal rights. These don't exist without a system of governance.

You're contradicting yourself. First you say I possess a right to murder and steal in the absence of a government. Then you say rights don't exist without a system of governance.

> Absent of any political order, who is to say what rights you have or don't have?

Thats an excellent question. Rights are a social construct that emerges on the basis of mutual cooperation and are continued through intentional participation. "who is to say" arises in the event of a dispute between rights-holders. This dispute can be resolved violently or by agreement. At one time, the disputants would take their dispute to an agreed-upon person who was acceptable to both and had a reputation for fair-decision-making. This created case law and is why, many times, the answer to "who is to say" is "precedent." Social order created this system and social order is sustained by it.

> This is the entire point of government and the social contract. It is a universal and mutually agreed on pact, which takes the form of an exchange of certain individual rights for protection of other rights, that critically, everyone must abide by and that maximize the well-being and security of everyone. It formalizes which universal rights exist and also what limitations exist. This system is what dictates your rights.

This is a series of popular misconceptions. Firstly the point of government differs according to who you ask. The social contract is a social myth that analogizes the process of government with an actual agreement as a way of sidestepping the uncomfortable fact that the hegemony of government is neither universal nor mutually agreed-upon. Thirdly, there is no right to commit murder (this would be a contradiction in terms) so there's not a way for me to exchange such a right for the benefit of murders being performed on my behalf. It is clear that well-being a security of everyone is not maximized by every government, so its equally possible that the purpose of government is something else, and government merely claims to maximize the well-being and security of everyone in order to do that something else, and tribalism (among other things) allows the various different governments to divide and conquer while the conquered are fraudulently persuaded that this is in their best interest and something they have agreed to anyway. Finally if government dictated the rights then there would be no logical way to criticize whichever incarnation of rights the government (in their wisdom and beneficence) deemed it appropriate to dictate. Such criticism is ubiquitous and demonstrates that while government may prohibit violations of and enforce upon a community a given concept of rights, the government is not the origin of those rights or that concept.

> Being "forced to" in this context would mean being compelled to abide by the laws of society.

People are not compelled to abide by the laws of society, they violate them every day. In fact violations are so numerous that there are millions of professionals whose sole occupation is to locate these violations, apprehend the perpetrators, and deal with them and their actions in a socially harmonious manner.

> This relationship defines the social contract that you, and everyone else in society, has entered into with the ruling authority/government.

Since we can agree that people are not compelled to obey the government, but choose to obey or suffer the consequences; can we also agree that the social contract is a mythos that relates the process of governance to an actual contract by way of analogy?