[Fwd: THE TEARS OF THE MIGHTY]

[Dace]

>Speech is an act and should be treated like all other acts. If certain
>speech acts cause harm to a certain person or group of persons those
>persons need protection in the same way that potential victims of
>physical violence need protection. I would make a distinction between
>speech that is offensive and speech that is harmful. Speech that offends
>does not necessarily harm.
>
>Sam Pawlett
>
If speech means sharing your thoughts, then that's not really an action.
That's more like a mental activity that happens to involve more than one
mind.  It's only by accident that this communion entails some kind of
physical action, like producing soundwaves in the air or pixels on a
computer screen.  At the same time, if your words are intended to achieve an
effect beyond merely changing someone's mind, then this is speech only in
the accidental sense that words happen to be the best tool for starting a
stampede in a crowded theatre, for instance, or conspiring to commit a
crime.  These are objectively harmful and not subject to protection.  So,
speech which serves only to express opinion is not really an action, while
speech designed to achieve an objective effect is indeed an action and is
therefore not really speech.

If we define the term this way, then the right to free speech is absolute.

Ted