Freedom of speech that undermines society

[CaptainPanic]

Former football player Eric Cantona wants to bring down the banks. He suggested that people all withdraw their money on the same day (link to BBC). Such a bank run would bring down the banks...

 

The Dutch minister of finances now wants to ban such messages (link in Dutch). In an official letter to the parliament, he suggested that it should be an offence to call for such action. The possibility of such a ban is also being investigated by the ministry of justicy (another link in Dutch).

 

Today, these kinds of messages are still within the freedom of speech. You can call for a revolution if you like. However, some time ago, someone in the Netherlands called for a bank run on a specific bank. It actually crashed the bank. Numerous people lost their savings... and tax money was required to compensate the customers of this bank. So, now the minister wants to make it an offence if you call for a bank run... because it can cause damage to society and to individuals.

 

As another example, I refer to a Dutch comedian who started to make fun of a particular brand of beer (link in English - reference in 3rd paragraph). Sales stopped nearly completely, and the brand was removed from the shelves within a matter of months. Some people lost their jobs. That was still within the acceptable boundaries of the freedom of speech... but it still damaged the economy in some way.

 

(In this discussion, please ignore the fact that the Dutch government has little or nothing to say about French ex-football players).

Should it be illegal to call for an economic revolution of some kind? Where does the freedom of speech stop, and where does (verbal?) terrorism start?

[swansont]

Not all speech is free. In the US, exceptions include libel/slander and inciting to riot or otherwise causing physical danger. The example of the beer brand joke is possibly slander or defamation, and would not be protected if that were the case. But it may have stopped short of that, and that's what advertising is all about.

 

I have a hard time with the idea that the government can decide that some speech is too dangerous on the basis of damage to society. It makes it too easy to quash dissenting opinion. Governments have a pretty big pulpit from which to make their case, and so do corporations. Banks being prone to fail under the circumstances you describe happened already, which is why the US has deposit insurance; there are ways to protect people without censoring the opposition.

[ewmon]

I see this sort of freedom-of-speech curtailment as: 1) blaming the speaker for the stupidity of the masses, 2) being far to vague to enforce with any real degree of sincerity, and 3) prone to being used subjectively.

 

For example, if you state that Korea is on the brink of war, and people then react in a certain way due to their ignorance and mass hysteria, and their actions are subjectively deemed negative by someone in authority, they come and arrest you.

 

On the other hand, it would help to hold politicians to their campaign promises, and allow them to be more readily impeached.

 

But overall, it would dangerously limit the freedom of speech.

[Sisyphus]

Making fun of a brand wouldn't be considered libel unless the statements made were objectively false and implied to be true, e.g. not obvious parody, like pretty much anything a comedian would say.

 

I don't think that "verbal terrorism" should be illegal, because it's pretty much the entire point of free speech. Dissent of any kind is always judged by the defenders of the status quo to be "harmful to society," a condition so broad and arbitrary that it could be (and has been/is, in the authoritarian regimes of the world) used to silence anyone, any time.

[imatfaal]

I think it would a retrogressive move for economic concerns to limit political freedom of speech - even when that speech is from a totally bonkers (although insanely talented) ex footballer. Almost every political stance will entail potential financial and economic changes - we cannot allow courts to become involved in deciding when economics takes precedence over politic in freedom of expression. Although there can never be absolute freedom of speech we must be highly averse from creating new barriers.

[swansont]

Making fun of a brand wouldn't be considered libel unless the statements made were objectively false and implied to be true, e.g. not obvious parody, like pretty much anything a comedian would say.

 

 

Right. It depends on what is said. Mocking low-alcohol beer (for those of you who like to pee but not get drunk, as I heard one comedian say) is not libel. There's also the issue of proof that the speech caused the problem. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and all. Maybe it was just a lousy product.

[mississippichem]

Right. It depends on what is said. Mocking low-alcohol beer (for those of you who like to pee but not get drunk, as I heard one comedian say) is not libel. There's also the issue of proof that the speech caused the problem. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and all. Maybe it was just a lousy product.

 

Agreed. The fact that citizens can call foul on a corporation, individuals, or the government is what allows a "free" society to operate. I see how one is not allowed to "yell fire in crowded theater" because that can cause immediate physical harm. However, people having the ability to say "buy Citibank stock but not Bank of America" is what ultimately drives markets, keeps the economy rolling, and keeps big corporations in check. Very interesting question though, one of those "where do you draw the line?" questions that frequent political discussion.

[jackson33]

Former football player Eric Cantona wants to bring down the banks. He suggested that people all withdraw their money on the same day (link to BBC). Such a bank run would bring down the banks...[/Quote]

 

CP; What an interesting topic and one folks in the US have a hard time understanding. The Holloway/Aruba case in mind. Basically Dutch Law stemmed from the Napoleonic Code or the French Civil Code (1804) and the many revisions inspired by the Netherlands Constitution. This opposed to laws formed under British Common Law. While the Netherlands do have a Constitution and a bill of rights, testing or using that document cannot be used. In the US for instance laws were/are formed to a Constitution and cannot be changed without a process. It's further my understand the Minister of Justice can interpret law, though I have no idea how the Finance Minister fits into the picture.

 

As suggested and in this case, even under Dutch Law IMO, RECOURSE would be permitted to anyone harmed or damaged under liable comment or advertising. In the US laws are formed and Constitutional based on obvious prevention of harm, I'm sure this would be permitted by the Minister of Justice. Certainly, the Government and people would be harmed by a run on the Banks. Since you mentioned this had happened before and it happens all the time in Banking or other business activity, the likelihood would be the business was in trouble or had been guilty of misrepresentation of service (banks over leveraged) and a natural result, opposed to the suggested scenario.

 

Should it be illegal to call for an economic revolution of some kind? Where does the freedom of speech stop, and where does (verbal?) terrorism start? [/Quote]

 

Boycotts of products or doing business with a particular business are quite common everywhere, legal and IMO justifiable. It's difficult for me to believe any one person/group could influence an entire population could bring down an entire economical system on unfounded accusations, but if terrorism can be proven or an established motive (said), there are plenty of laws already in place, especially in Europe.

[padren]

If freedom of speech was limited to prevent people from making flawed, inaccurate, and outright dangerously stupid comments simply because it could cause harm or derail entire economies, the Republican Party would have had to mime their entire campaigns on street corners in the last election.

 

Of course, they believe it's the Democrats that are giving voice to dangerous and harmful ideas that will be the End of America - so really if you want to get into regulating speech all you will do is decide who are the saviors and who are the devils based on some sort of mob mentality.

 

 

The key factor is that you actually are legally allowed to yell "Fire" in a movie theater if you see a fire. Once you get beyond movie theaters the question is: whether or not Jenny Mccarthy is a hero for blowing the whistle on vaccines, whether Cantona is correct that such a protest would produce a long term benefit for everyone, whether AGW theories are based on dirty science, whether florescent bulbs are harder on the environment than incandescent bulbs, etc... all boil down to a question of whether the person speaking actually does see a fire or if they are just high as a kite and/or exceptionally stupid.

 

We already (allegedly) regulate speech for accuracy/libel, but any more would be a mistake considering the people we would have to ask to regulate it.

Edited November 27, 2010 by padren

[lemur]

Former football player Eric Cantona wants to bring down the banks. He suggested that people all withdraw their money on the same day (link to BBC). Such a bank run would bring down the banks...

 

The Dutch minister of finances now wants to ban such messages (link in Dutch). In an official letter to the parliament, he suggested that it should be an offence to call for such action. The possibility of such a ban is also being investigated by the ministry of justicy (another link in Dutch).

 

Today, these kinds of messages are still within the freedom of speech. You can call for a revolution if you like. However, some time ago, someone in the Netherlands called for a bank run on a specific bank. It actually crashed the bank. Numerous people lost their savings... and tax money was required to compensate the customers of this bank. So, now the minister wants to make it an offence if you call for a bank run... because it can cause damage to society and to individuals.

 

As another example, I refer to a Dutch comedian who started to make fun of a particular brand of beer (link in English - reference in 3rd paragraph). Sales stopped nearly completely, and the brand was removed from the shelves within a matter of months. Some people lost their jobs. That was still within the acceptable boundaries of the freedom of speech... but it still damaged the economy in some way.

 

(In this discussion, please ignore the fact that the Dutch government has little or nothing to say about French ex-football players).

Should it be illegal to call for an economic revolution of some kind? Where does the freedom of speech stop, and where does (verbal?) terrorism start?

This is funny. As I recall, during the time of the Enron/WorldOnline scandal, the criticism was that people were intimidated out of whistleblowing before the situation got out of hand. Now, after so much has been done to legally protect whistleblowing, someone is proposing to make it illegal? I suppose they're hoping that if everyone keeps their mouth shut, the illusion of false economic hope can propel the economy indefinitely. If you believe that an economy can sustain itself if people keep faith in it, then why can't the economy be propelled on the faith of its own ability to sustain itself in the first place without mandating such? Why should there need to be suppression of whisleblowing and bank-runs? Why not just reform economic practices in a way that makes them immune from bad news-claims? If an economy is stable enough to survive without runs on banks, why shouldn't it be able to survive such runs? Could this signal some failure in the ability of investment to adequately monitor real values and economic processes?

Edited November 27, 2010 by lemur

[ParanoiA]

Why not just reform economic practices in a way that makes them immune from bad news-claims?

 

A nice start would be for us to stop pretending fractional reserve banking isn't fraud. I can't sell the same car to two different people, with a title for each, based on the gamble they won't demand using it at the same time.

 

Instead, I'm required to tell them they only own half the car, and thus, only have a right to demand its availability half the time.

 

 

 

On the subject of free speech and undermining society...I'm starting to get the liberal progressive thought process on unequal distribution of wealth; the unfair advantage and access to freedom enjoyed by the rich. I see the same thing with speech. I call them the 'spich' - those rich with speech.

 

How is it fair that CNN and Fox News get to enjoy so much freedom of speech? They have access to millions of ears, and expressly deny that same access to others. They get heard by millions, day in and day out, yet the 'spoor', like me and most of us here, are denied that opportunity. The outcome here is a tilted playing field that is designed for the spich to remain spich. The spoor just get spoorer.

 

I think we should redistribute speech, so that everyone has fair access to speech.

 

I know what you're thinking...you have a right to speak, not to be heard. But that applies with economic disparity as well. You have a right to market, not to sell. Everyone has the same right to engage in trade, but not to be traded with. Forcing traders is as problematic as forcing listeners. Yet, we don't seem to think of disparit listening as an unacceptable outcome.

 

If I understand the liberal position on economics, it's the disparit outcome that creates the case for redistribution; progressive taxation. Same should be true with speech.

 

Right now, free speech is unequal speech. And that undermines a society based on equal rights. Don't it?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

One could argue that this is why an open Internet is so important: it gives everyone the opportunity to be heard.

[Marat]

There already exists a legal mechanism in common law jurisdictions for controlling campaigns like this to drive a bank out of business by calling for concerted withdrawal of funds on deposit with it. The so-called 'economic torts' allow companies to sue people who act to injure them merely out of malice and with no competitive business interest motivating their attacks. Thus if I open a shoe store next to yours and drive you out of business by selling shoes more cheaply than you do, that is fair competition and you can't sue me for it. But if I open a shoe store next to yours and give away shoes at great loss to myself for no other purpose than just to injure you financially out of spite then you can sue me for damages under the claim of an economic tort.

 

So unless the person calling for a run on the bank is operating a competing bank, he would be committing an economic tort if he were making his statement in a common law jurisdiction. How a civil law jurisdiction like the Netherlands would handle this may be different, however.