"Freedom" of speech

[Ordinaryman]

Burt Reynolds did he didn't he? Then I guess its me who doesn't understand riddles. Ill get my coat.

[savvypaul]

Maybe I'd get it if I'd seen the clip.

[slinger]

So you want him prosecuted for what you think the effect of his words would have on his supporters, even though he did not directly tell them what to do.

That's a dangerous prosecution.

'POST HOC ERGO PROPTOR HOC'

Read what I wrote, instead of what you wanted to hear. Nowhere did I mention prosecuting him, you're attempting to put words into my mouth.

"He played to his audience and got what he wanted" was my summation. Do you agree or disagree with that?

[Daniel Quinn]

I don't know him well enough to declare he got what he wanted. I suspect he didn't though.

[TheMadMick]

It seems he speaks first and thinks afterwards.

[terrybooth]

I guess I started this thread because I was interested in the constraints on freedom of speech.

I'll pass over all of the socio-linguistic stuff I hinted at earlier. And the 'freedom' of the press has not been directly referenced, although alluded to. We have already touched on censorship, and I was going to start off with 'A lie is halfway around the world before the truth put on it's boots on' (normally attributed to Churchill), however, Jonathan Swift was a little more incisive

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late...

If we accept this, as I think many would, then the questions of free speech vs censorship becomes a moral one (however morals are embedded, be it social norm or law), how far should someone with amplification by a group or technology (megaphone, the press, social media or, more usually, both) be allowed to go before taking action again socially, most usually with recourse to the established social institutions? But who controls the established social institutions?

So, we all knew that coronavirus and Trump (or maybe Brexit) was on their way but our first reaction was that it wouldn't happened (Trump would mellow once in power, the coronavirus would stop in Italy or wherever, the referendum would never go that way) but somehow we wouldn't react to this (that applies only to those who thought that in the case of Brexit). Maybe that's also a basic human problem.

[terrybooth]

As an aside, here's the plot of Abigail's Party, according to Wikipedia. Maybe this is another thread.

The terrain is "the London side of Essex", "theoretical Romford" according to Leigh.[6] Beverly Moss invites her new neighbours, Angela and Tony, who moved into the road just two weeks ago, over for drinks. She has also invited her neighbour Susan (Sue), divorced for three years, whose fifteen-year-old daughter Abigail is holding a party at home. Beverly's husband Laurence comes home late from work, just before the guests arrive. The gathering starts off in a stiff, insensitive, British middle-class way as the virtual strangers tentatively gather, until Beverly and Laurence start sniping at each other. As Beverly serves more drinks and the alcohol takes effect, Beverly flirts more and more overtly with Tony, as Laurence sits impotently by. After a tirade when Beverly insists on showing off her kitsch print Wings of Love, Laurence suffers a fatal heart attack.

[slinger]

It seems he speaks first and thinks afterwards.

I think 50% of that statement is true.

[slinger]

It seems he speaks first and thinks afterwards.

I think 50% of that statement is true.

Maybe even less than that.

[Daniel Quinn]

Swifts quote was written before the Internet. Now the truth and lies travel as fast. You need to be equipped to scrutinise information presented to you then you can discern the truth.

At the risk of being farty you also need an ontological and epistemological foundation so your truth deos not run with the hare and hounds.