Lumifer comments on Schelling fences on slippery slopes - Less Wrong

179 Post author: Yvain 16 March 2012 11:44PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (189)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 30 March 2015 08:36:24PM 2 points [-]

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.

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?

Comment author: Caue 30 March 2015 08:56:31PM *  0 points [-]

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).