I don't think even that works. I tend to think it is an unfortunate import from the US because of the first amendment. Even statements of opinion are just a more narrow form of action.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
We’re not referring to speech acts here beyond the act of expressing an opinion I’m assuming? I think you can make general statements about whether law should regulate that as distinct from other kinds of speech.
Hmmm. I doubt it as currently informed. If I statement of opinion will lead to someone being killed particular considerations apply that don't for other statements of opinion.
I also don't think the discouse is confined like that either.
See:
Yes but there you’re regulating based on the causal relationship with killing not the context of the opinion expressed. I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t regulate based on opinion/expression just that it’s perfectly cogent to have that as a line.
I'm not sure that works. Can;t we say that is true of all action? Movements of human bodies themselves are never alone objectionable, it is the adverse possibe results for others they may result in that we're worried about.
I think we can distinguish between acts which are regulated in themselves and acts that are regulated only when they produce consequences or are sufficiently likely to do so. We don’t need a general theory of regulating action; we can have a different theory of each of these categories for example
Do we ever regulate acts for themselves? I can see that we regulate acts that, as things turn out, don't have any consequences (eg attempted murder) but do we ever regulate acts for themselves regardless of how they might effect others? What would you have in mind?
So in my view this isn’t an issue of a general theory of action/speech but of more narrow freedom of expression. It’s entirely plausible to say that law shouldn’t regulate expression of opinion qua opinion. We could obviously also regulate it but it’s possible to delineate expression imo
That isn’t the way the US Supreme Court sees it. Lots of cases there concern speech that isn’t opinion including deceit about facts (US v Alvarez), untrue statements of fact (NYT v Sullivan) threatening acts (RAV v City of St Paul) and incitement to commit crimes (Brandenburg v Ohio).
Comments
I also don't think the discouse is confined like that either.
See:
/1
https://bsky.app/profile/proftomkins.bsky.social