shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (how creative of me) shouldn’t be allowed
I would say that if someone can be proven to have said fire while knowing full well that there wasn’t a fire, they could be prosecuted. But if they genuinely believed there was a fire, they should not. Also, it would be incredibly dangerous if you could somehow prevent anyone in a crowded building from shouting “fire” unless a fire was officially known to be occurring.
The slippery slope argument
The slippery slope fallacy fallacy. AKA the accusation of slippery slope to discredit an argument. It’s only a fallacy if you’re trying to form a syllogism. The fact is that some trends do get worse.
Would you say that most of Europe has become a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or is on its way towards it, just because denying the Holocaust and the expression of some other ideas is illegal?
Not at all. Just because some speech is banned doesn’t mean crazy amounts of speech will necessarily be banned. But sometimes you can see a trend toward something and be worried about it. Or worried about what it implies in a broader context.
Overall, I think the danger is that if speech can be banned, you better trust the people banning it. And I don’t know of anyone I trust with that power over society. As an example, Youtube recently banned Russian opposition leader Navalny. Unfortunately, Youtube can and does censor content as it pleases, and there’s not much point being mad about it. The only solution is to support alternatives.
I would say that if someone can be proven to have said fire while knowing full well that there wasn’t a fire, they could be prosecuted. But if they genuinely believed there was a fire, they should not. Also, it would be incredibly dangerous if you could somehow prevent anyone in a crowded building from shouting “fire” unless a fire was officially known to be occurring.
The slippery slope fallacy fallacy. AKA the accusation of slippery slope to discredit an argument. It’s only a fallacy if you’re trying to form a syllogism. The fact is that some trends do get worse.
Not at all. Just because some speech is banned doesn’t mean crazy amounts of speech will necessarily be banned. But sometimes you can see a trend toward something and be worried about it. Or worried about what it implies in a broader context.
Overall, I think the danger is that if speech can be banned, you better trust the people banning it. And I don’t know of anyone I trust with that power over society. As an example, Youtube recently banned Russian opposition leader Navalny. Unfortunately, Youtube can and does censor content as it pleases, and there’s not much point being mad about it. The only solution is to support alternatives.