Terms & Concepts
This page provides a glossary of words and ideas frequently used, here. It relies on orthodox definitions from standard sources, so as to facilitate rational discussion. Attempts to use alternative definitions frequently indicate intellectual dishonesty, and an attempt to perpetrate the informal logical fallacy known as “shifting sands.” DO NOT try that, here. Those who wish to avoid a ban should check the definition, first.
First Amendment
A part of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, the text reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Two types of clauses exist in the U.S. Constitution — those that assign powers and responsibilities to government, and those that constrain government from action. The First Amendment falls into the latter category.
This amendment prohibits government from creation of a national religion or using its powers to support or promote one religious doctrine to the detriment of others. Additionally, it forbids government from the use of force or law to punish the exercise of free speech under nearly any circumstance, and prohibits censorship or retaliation against newspapers or broadcast journalism. It also prevents government from jailing people who gather in (peaceful) crowds, nor does it permit the use of law to punish complaints about government actions.
As with all Constitutional provisions, the First Amendment has limits and exceptions. The United States Supreme Court ruled, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444), that law enforcement may take action to stop speech meant to directly incite imminent violence or other lawless activity, or any speech that would create an imminent threat of harm to public safety. That means one cannot incite a riot, or shout “fire” in a crowded theater.
Additionally, child pornography has no First Amendment protection, since abuse of children is inherent in its production. Moreover, the amendment does not protect the use of “fighting words,” so those who threaten violence or abuse, or use racial epithets, will likely find themselves charged with verbal assault.
Finally, the First Amendment technically does not protect “obscenity,” but since so many people disagree about what that word means it’s tough to define the prohibitions. Generally speaking, if a broadcaster transmits “speech” openly, in a way available to everyone, government can impose greater restrictions. However, if the broadcaster scrambles the signal, or requires subscriptions or other special effort on behalf of members of the audience, then he or she faces few restrictions.
The main concept to remember, here, is that the First Amendment constrains the actions of government. It does not constrain the actions of private citizens, except as already noted.
As such, the First Amendment does not prevent owners from setting the terms for use of private property, nor does it bar private citizens from imposing consequences for speech they find disagreeable. That means the First Amendment does not permit someone to post a sign or paint graffiti on another person’s property without permission, it does not require a property owner to make his or her resources available to others freely, and it does not prevent private citizens from the use of pickets and boycotts that might drive a business into bankruptcy because the owner said something enough people found offensive.
Relevance: Rationalist owns this domain and this blog, not the United States government and, as such, he sets the rules for what appears on this site. The First Amendment does not permit anyone else to post without constraint, any more than it would allow anyone to vandalize any other property he owns.
Logical Fallacies
This section defines the logical fallacies mentioned in blog posts, or used (accidentally or not) by commenters. This section will almost certainly expand as time goes on.
Shifting Sands/Moving the Goalposts: A form of the informal logical fallacy known as “equivocation,” this fallacy denotes the situation where in the process of making an argument, the goal is shifted to make that argument either easier or harder. In proper logic, the idea is to define the goal or the outcome of the argument first, and then provide the facts and reasoning that support the conclusion.
Relevance: In most of modern political discussion, this occurs when people redefine the meaning of the words they use, so as to allow themselves to win a debate more easily. For instance, the word “socialism” has a very clear and concise definition, based in 19th Century political thought and the written works of those who created the concept. However, it’s a lot easier to win an argument if you call an opponent a “socialist” and then change the definition of the term to include everything that person says. People pull that crap because the term “socialist” has such negative connotations, at least in the United States.
Rhetoric
This term dates back to Classical Greece, and concern the study of the effective use of spoken and written language, especially when used to persuade. It is part of the art of human discourse, and while actors and others may use it to please or entertain an audience, it primarily appears as part of public debate. It features a number of linguistic “devices,” or tactics, such as the use of metaphors to describe people or events, or hyperbole to make a point in a dramatic way. One of the most often used device is the “rhetorical question,” which is not meant to elicit facts or information, but rather to illustrate a flaw in an argument or persuade someone to rethink a position. For instance, the late comedian George Carlin used a rhetorical question for humorous effect, when he asked, “Isn’t it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do ‘practice’?” It’s not meant to elicit an answer, but instead meant to make the listener think about medical doctors differently (and earn a laugh).
Link: http://literarydevices.net/rhetoric/
Sophistry
This term dates back to Classical Greece, but has negative connotations in most modern languages. It is defined in most dictionaries as an argument that sounds plausible, but is factually false; or an argument that is deliberately misleading.
Statecraft
The use of influence in the apparatus of government to create and implement policy. This is the unique professional skill of the use of governmental power and authority, as distinct from any other type of organization.