That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused.
Again, it depends. Suppose that I and a crowd of my friends are dead against spodek, and wish to run all the spodeks out out of town? It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
Now, I'm not endorsing the colleges' position here, which I think has become absurdly restrictive in many cases. But I've seen many absolutist 'defenders of free speech' tip over into shouting down their opponents, and I don't care for ochlocracy any more than I care for institutional authoritarianism.
> Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
If you did, the crime wouldn't be you speaking your mind... it'd be the breaking and entering.
And if you want to serenade me without trespassing, as annoying as that might be I don't see how I could stop you. By that, I mean I don't see how I could ethically petition the government to make you stop (even if they'd do this).
> It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
It's not the speech that would bother me, but the pitchforks.
People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort of sociological theory that remains unspoken:
That (some) speech is capable of manipulating other people to do things they might not otherwise do.
Now, this isn't particularly controversial, and I don't think I'd dispute it (I might remain skeptical, but silently so).
If that theory is true, then is the person who manipulates through communication the criminal, or is it the people who are manipulated into crime? I contend that the latter are wholly culpable.
On the serenading example, noise complaints to the police aren't really controversial; the notion of a disturbance of the peace is an old common law one that I think the founders would have recognized.
People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort of sociological theory that remains unspoken: [...] If that theory is true, then is the person who manipulates through communication the criminal, or is it the people who are manipulated into crime? I contend that the latter are wholly culpable.
I think both. If you're exhorting people to commit an act and they do it, you're not morally blameless; the manipulation is itself an activity notwithstanding the fact of its intangibility. This is why we have laws against 'incitement to riot,' as it's a fact that that most people behave differently in crowds and some people make a specialty out of leveraging that to destructive ends.
Well, yelling Fire in the crowded theater is the iconic example of manipulating people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do.
There's a clear time vs risk component. If you don't have time to evaluate the speaker, and the risk is high, very few people will not believe the speaker.
For regular old speech like "this flavor of ice cream is better" i agree with you.
Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused.
Again, it depends. Suppose that I and a crowd of my friends are dead against spodek, and wish to run all the spodeks out out of town? It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
Now, I'm not endorsing the colleges' position here, which I think has become absurdly restrictive in many cases. But I've seen many absolutist 'defenders of free speech' tip over into shouting down their opponents, and I don't care for ochlocracy any more than I care for institutional authoritarianism.