I disagree with this form of dismissal as a rule.

If someone says something and then says "it was a joke", "it was a game", "I was just making a point", that doesn't cancel out the words and their impact - social atmosphere is not an intellectually pristine environment. You will change the atmosphere by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and once it's done, there is no going back.

Likewise, if we dismiss someone's statement because "it was attention seeking", "they didn't really mean it", "something was misunderstood", "it's just part of the culture", that also doesn't cancel it out.

There are plenty of young, impressionable folks who latch on to ideas unthinkingly because they cannot take anything seriously at their age and level of maturity. But that is not usually the case with a 32-year-old adult like Shkreli, or people in hiphop culture, or people in actual street gangs.

Posturing language exists to make a claim to credibility. It serves a real purpose and is used in an instrumental way, for the purpose of conducting business on the terms of those who use it. The people who exploit this language the best contain in their personality some particular combination of motivation and lack of restraint, enabling their threats to be real to some degree.

Shkreli already displays such a personality among multiple facets. There is no reason to deny him the possibility of simply being a bad human being who is in need of careful monitoring by society.

FYI, the "fire in a crowded theater" phrase comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v. United States[1]. Writing for the majority (actually it was a unanimous decision), Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Many people nod their heads at this example, but they forget that Holmes was using it to justify the imprisonment of a man for leafletting against the draft. Those who earnestly reference "fire in a crowded theater" would likely stop if they knew its history. If anything, it argues against their point.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The idea that the history of a phrase or word dictates its meaning is patently absurd. If that were the case, you would be equally appalled by a man calling himself an "ordinary guy"… which comes from Guy Fawkes, a failed 17th century religious terrorist.

I don't think that's the same at all. I gave an example of a unique phrase where people agree with the original sentiment –even the exact words– of Holmes, only to backtrack when they discover what those words were used to justify. Your example is a single word whose various meanings are now completely disconnected from Guy Fawkes or religious extremism.

>>> "You will change the atmosphere by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and once it's done, there is no going back."

>>> "Posturing language exists to make a claim to credibility. It serves a real purpose and is used in an instrumental way, for the purpose of conducting business on the terms of those who use it."

>>> "enabling their threats to be real to some degree."

>>> "There is no reason to deny him the possibility of simply being a bad human being who is in need of careful monitoring by society."

Do you realize what you're advocating here? Also, referencing "fire in a crowded theater" is usually looked upon as a canary for those who don't know what they're talking about in regards to free speech

I don't think I'm following, other than the implication that chipsy is ignorant about free speech. For the sake of discussion, why not spell out your concerns?

we don't jail people for being "slightly sociopathic" "assholes", we jail them for breaking the law. Attempting to construe someone's unrelated speech, even as sociopathic as it may come off, as justification for jailing them (remember, for securities fraud) is terribly dishonest and a very dangerous slippery slope.

Also, by the way, threatening speech is technically protected under the first amendment [1]. Dunno why you brought up the government/public opinion topic.

Here's a lawyer, something I am not, on the matter, although I think we're devolving from my initial point: [0] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne... [1] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...

To address my empathy comment, I think it's in very poor taste to declare someone "sociopathic" (i.e. shades of mentally ill) if you're not a doctor, close friend/family member, or otherwise licensed professional. Doubly so to make such a judgement based off a small sampling of online commentary. We should all strive to be empathetic and employ a principle of charity when making such judgements, especially before we know the facts.

Well, no, I was specifically responding to the idea that he's a bad person because he made a few particular comments in a fricken' hip hop interview.

I don't know whether he meant that particular statement but if you watch his stream for a while it becomes clear that he is a delusional sociopath.

or, you know, an insulated, spoiled kid. but that would require empathy

He grew up poor.

The two are not mutually exclusive, but point taken