= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Caue comments on Schelling fences on slippery slopes - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (189)
No, I'm saying that causation is sufficiently less direct in this case (than in cases like shouting "fire" and ordering a murder) that it's more reasonable to put it in the "intent to transmit information" box.
I really don't see that. Take a plain-vanilla election poster consisting of an ugly mug and "Vote for X!" This is a pretty direct attempt at causation and I don't really see much of information being transmitted.
Looking at my thought process, I think I'm using this differentiating test:
Look at the probability of the outcome, given the speech - if it's high enough that you can ignore the receiver of the message as an independent agent whose response generates uncertainty, the causation looks pretty direct. But if the outcome is dependent on people freely considering the information and acting on their own conclusions (as they would if the information was known by other means), then it looks indirect enough that I consider "transmiting information" as the function of the speech.
Example 1: shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Are you quite sure the crowd will stampede? or they'll look at you like you're an idiot and tell you to shut up?
Example 2: Russel and Hugh are two best mates living in Australia. Russel says: "An election is coming and I have to vote. I don't care about them slimy politicians and I'll vote for whoever you tell me". Hugh says "Sure, mate, this time vote for the Wombat!". Is Hugh's speech protected?
1- I am not sure it would happen, but I think that someone who does shout "fire!" is indeed quite sure people will run.
2 - I don't know Australia's laws, so I don't know what would be protected. But Hugh's speech goes in my first box (the only information being transmited is Hugh's preferences. Also, by analogy: if it were "should I kill him?", both would be responsible).