The “Yelling Fire” Fallacy

by Chaz Bufe, publisher See Sharp Press

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the enemies of free speech have been worming their way up through the floorboard. They range from religious fanatics openly supporting murder, to those who say–nudge, nudge, wink, wink–that those who exercise free speech should expect consequences. They range from PC multiculturalists, to Fox News commentators, to the pope. His comments were typical. He likened insults to religion to insults to his mother, and balling his fist said that those who make such comments should “expect to be hit.” He added that free speech doesn’t extend to ridicule of religion.

These remarks are very similar to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s  famous aphorism about yelling fire in a crowded theater, which he used as justification to restrict free speech in Schenck v. United States (1919), which upheld the Espionage Act. That Act had nothing to do with espionage, but was instead designed and used to suppress opposition to World War I.  Under it, thousands were prosecuted and jailed, often for years, for exercising the supposedly sacred right of free speech.

But do Holmes, the pope, et al., have a point? No, they don’t. They’re using argument by analogy, the weakest form of argument. Its weakness lies in that argument by analogy treats two dissimilar things as if they were identical, and then prescribes the “remedy” for one as if it were the “remedy” for the other. This only holds if those making the analogy can demonstrate that the two things are identical, or so similar that the differences between them are trivial. But they never do this, because they can’t. They’re attempting to arouse an emotional response, and hoping that listeners will be caught up in the emotion and will overlook the obvious fallacious nature of their argument.

If you doubt this, please notice that both Holmes and the pope used two of the most inflammatory, emotion-rousing analogies imaginable.

Also please notice that they don’t even attempt to demonstrate that “yelling fire in a crowded theater,” insults to one’s mother, and critical political and religious speech are the same, and so should be treated the same. Again, they simply can’t do this, so they rely on assertion and the inattention and  emotionality of their listeners.

If they want to outlaw yelling fire in a crowded theater, fine. Let them say so. And if they want to outlaw critical political and religious speech, fine. Let them say so, and let’s see them produce some actual justification for doing that rather than hiding behind false analogies.

If they want to outlaw certain types of speech, they need to demonstrate that those types of speech are threats to the public. But they can’t, and they don’t want to be open about what they’re up to, so they rely on weak arguments and emotional manipulation.

There are only two reasons why people advance the “yelling fire” fallacy. There are only two reasons why they advance this tired half-witticism: 1) They’re too dumb to know what they’re doing; or 2) They’re deliberately trying to manipulate and mislead.

Finally, regarding the pope’s comments: once past grade school, most people do not respond to comments about their mothers with physical violence. That’s called growing up, acting like an adult.

Related

• 2. Bill Maher on Terrorism and the Charlie Hebdo Attack
• Charlie Hebdo Editor’s Widow to MSNBC: ‘I Would Like to Die’
• Bill Maher talking Charlie Hebdo: There are No Great Religions. They’re All Stupid and Dangerous.
• Bill Maher On Islam: ‘When There’s This Many Bad Apples, There’s Something Wrong With The Orchard’
• Social media honors slain Charlie Hebdo employees
• Bill Maher: Hundreds of Millions of Muslims Support Attack on Charlie Hebdo
• Fox’s Eric Bolling: Liberals Are More Like Al Qaeda Than Charlie Hebdo
• Bill Maher on Terrorism and the Charlie Hebdo Attack……
• Bill Maher on Islam: “When There’s This Many Bad Apples, There’s Something Wrong with the Orchard”

Obama and His Base: An Abusive Relationship (part III)

 

(Parts I & II dealt with Barack Obama’s apologists, his base, the racist opposition to him, and why he’s an ideal front man for corporate capitalism–why his base takes so much abuse from him, yet keeps coming back for more. Today we’ll look at exactly how he’s betrayed them.)

How exactly has Obama betrayed the people who elected him? It would require a book to detail all of the ways. In the interest of brevity, we’ll only hit some of the low points.

During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised that his administration would be the most open in history and that he’d protect whistleblowers. The reality? He’s run the most secretive administration in history and has systematically and viciously persecuted whistleblowers. He’s even repeatedly used the Espionage Act of 1917 (an Orwellian piece of legislation originally designed to crush dissent during World War I, and used to throw into prison those who openly opposed U.S. entry into the war). He’s used this despicable, free speech-suppression law to ruin the lives of those who were _not_ engaged in “espionage” to benefit the “enemy” (whoever or whatever that might be, now), but rather who exposed government wrongdoing to public view. Whistleblowers Obama has targeted include Thomas Drake, Bradley Manning, Jeffrey Hammond, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Barrett Brown, among many others.

And it’s even worse than that. Obama promised to respect individual rights and civil liberties. Instead, as the recent NSA leaks have revealed, he’s delivered a total surveillance state that would put East Germany and the Stasi to shame. Now, almost unbelievably, in the wake of Ed Snowden’s (and Glenn Greenwald‘s) NSA revelations, Obama is making speeches about reining in the surveillance abuses he himself created.

Obama promised accountability. To date, his “Justice” Department has done essentially no investigation of two of the greatest crimes in U.S. history: the stampeding of the nation into an illegal war of aggression and the most massive financial fraud in world history. The war resulted in 4500 U.S. dead, over 100,000 Iraqi dead, millions more driven from their homes, and ongoing sectarian mayhem. The financial fraud resulted in a worldwide financial crisis, $70 _trillion_ in losses, and millions upon millions losing their jobs and homes. Yet Obama has refused to investigate these atrocities, let alone prosecute the perpetrators. Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has even stated that the major banks, largely responsible for the financial crisis, are “too big to jail.”

During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised healthcare reform, including a “public option.” Once in office, he took the public option off the table almost immediately. He didn’t even try to get it. Didn’t even use it as a bargaining chip. Instead, he delivered a Heritage Foundation plan that threatens neither private insurers nor the pharmaceutical industry. As Michael Moore put it, Obama delivered “a quarter of a loaf.” (The only other things he’s delivered on have been social issues, e.g., gay marriage and scrapping “don’t ask don’t tell”–things that his base supports and that in no way threaten corporate interests; and even there he’s been a day late and a dollar short.)

Obama promised to fix the economy. He had his chance when he came into office. He could have asked for, and quite possibly obtained, a stimulus package adequate to jump start the economy and put millions back to work. Not incidentally, his campaign economic advisors, notably Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, were advocating precisely this. But once in office, Obama immediately ditched Krugman and his other progressive advisors and replaced them with Wall Street insiders such as Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. Under their guidance, he asked for a stimulus package big enough to save the banks and prevent total collapse of the economy, but not big enough to put much of a dent in sky-high uenmployment. Obama asked for and delivered a stimulus only one-third to one-quarter the size that his former progressive economic advisors advocated. We all know the results.

There are many other instances where Obama has betrayed those who elected him, but this is a blog post so I’ll stop here.

If you’re an Obama supporter, face it: he’s betrayed you.

The Republicans appeal to the very worst in people: racism, misogyny, homophobia, sadism, callousness, religious zealotry,xenophobia, and a boot-licking, blustering, bullying nationalism. By and large, they deliver what they promise.

In contrast, the Democrats, and Obama in particular, appeal to the best in people–compassion, tolerance, a desire for justice and fairness–and rarely if ever deliver. Instead, they routinely betray the hopes they’ve raised.

You decide which is worse.

Related articles

• NSA Blackmailing Obama? Interview with Whistleblower Russ Tice
• The FBI’s Past and Obama’s Present War on Terror

• Obama’s abuse of the Espionage Act is modern-day McCarthyism (globalclarity.wordpress.com)
• The Surveillance Speech: A Low Point in Barack Obama’s Presidency – Conor Friedersdorf – The Atlantic (theatlantic.com)
• Obama Promise To ‘Protect Whistleblowers’ Disappears From Change.gov… (techdirt.com)