Yelling Bomb in a Crowded Theater
It seems that the key argument against freedom of speech is the slippery slope extension of the "yelling bomb in a crowded theater" case. Basically, this is probably called the "raising a false alarm" problem of freedom of speech.
First of all, I think the argument that "yelling bomb in a crowded theater" is dangerous undermines the intelligence of people. If it were okay to raise false alarms, and if they were raised occasionally, then people would be used to responding calmly and rationally to such alarms. In a broader view, the fact that we are conditioned to panic at an alarm, and to suddenly zoom to "save myself" rather than "save my community" is a deeper problem.
Take the theater scenario, someone very convincingly and confidently yells, "There's a bomb!!!", what should be the response?
Everyone should stand up, quickly and quietly walk out of the theater. This is the rational response. Once the alarm was investigated, and it was found to be false, what should be done with the yeller?
As a school teacher, we practice alarms regularly, and practice responding calmly and rationally. If someone pulls an alarm, we attempt to correct their behavior by taking away something that was fulfilling a need. In most cases, we take away their opportunity for socializing and instituting a sort of degradation ceremony.
The problem of doing this is that if the same person calls a real alarm in the future, the people may not respond to the alarm at all, this being the "chicken little" or "boy who cried 'wolf'" problem.
A problem of responding to unsubstantiated alarm is that the person yelling could actually be the bomber, and the bomb could be in the lobby, so the crowd of people would be heading towards harm instead of away from. In this case, should everyone simply remain in their seats? Perhaps.
Another problem is that until people are ready to respond calmly to an alarm, there is the possibly of herd behavior or a stampede. Again, perhaps people should not respond, unless they are able to spread out or scatter.
So it comes down to this, is there a time when speech should be "punished"? If so, who decides?
Perhaps it boils down to how much we are willing to capitulate to becoming more of a culture in the grips of fear. Are we willing to risk a conspiracy of silence?
First of all, I think the argument that "yelling bomb in a crowded theater" is dangerous undermines the intelligence of people. If it were okay to raise false alarms, and if they were raised occasionally, then people would be used to responding calmly and rationally to such alarms. In a broader view, the fact that we are conditioned to panic at an alarm, and to suddenly zoom to "save myself" rather than "save my community" is a deeper problem.
Take the theater scenario, someone very convincingly and confidently yells, "There's a bomb!!!", what should be the response?
Everyone should stand up, quickly and quietly walk out of the theater. This is the rational response. Once the alarm was investigated, and it was found to be false, what should be done with the yeller?
As a school teacher, we practice alarms regularly, and practice responding calmly and rationally. If someone pulls an alarm, we attempt to correct their behavior by taking away something that was fulfilling a need. In most cases, we take away their opportunity for socializing and instituting a sort of degradation ceremony.
The problem of doing this is that if the same person calls a real alarm in the future, the people may not respond to the alarm at all, this being the "chicken little" or "boy who cried 'wolf'" problem.
A problem of responding to unsubstantiated alarm is that the person yelling could actually be the bomber, and the bomb could be in the lobby, so the crowd of people would be heading towards harm instead of away from. In this case, should everyone simply remain in their seats? Perhaps.
Another problem is that until people are ready to respond calmly to an alarm, there is the possibly of herd behavior or a stampede. Again, perhaps people should not respond, unless they are able to spread out or scatter.
So it comes down to this, is there a time when speech should be "punished"? If so, who decides?
Perhaps it boils down to how much we are willing to capitulate to becoming more of a culture in the grips of fear. Are we willing to risk a conspiracy of silence?