Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
Exactly, that's one interpretation. That's called, in theory, historic interpretation.
Your getting close

The magical properties are in the fact that you seem to see some kind of causal connection between the speech and the result, emptying the affected subjects of will.
No causal connection - a direct causation happens. individual yells fire - panic strikes the crowd - someone ends up hurt or dead. The direct result of the yelling of fire caused the events to happen.

Caracterizing positions of idealogue is what's stucking the conversetion, apparently you have a certain taste for attaching arbitrary labels to certain statements made against your possition.
What do you think the term magic is - don't go attempting to play the maytr when you yourself are more guilty of this.

And still you don't recognize the interpretation that I proposed as something that reasonabily can be infered.
Maybe its because its not something that is reasonabily inferred.

You can throw as much examples as you want, you're ignoring the fact that there's only a very tiny connection between an speech and any given effect as far as human relatioships go (not sure what other effect a voice or a letter can cause).
Death resulting from the irresponsible shouting of fire in a crowded place is not a minor or tiny connection between speech and a given event.

In all the examples that you've provided, except pehaps for one or two occasions in wich the consequences might surpass the line of the reasonable (like punishing someone for denying the holocaust) and in the case of sedition, we're talking about penal cases in wich the persecution begins by a private instance.
Not at all - I clearly have stated that there are both civil and criminal applications.

That's, if there's no result, i.e. person affected, there's no case whatsoever.
Your getting warm.

In the case of sedition this changes, you speak some words and suddenly it's a crime by itself, I don't know why, perhaps you can explain this to me, since I've never understood this quite enough.
Then your attempting to debunk my statements from lack of knowledge - sedition is covered in the United States Constitution as a specific event that the government through Congress has to act on.

I don't need to go to the US for that. And now that you gave me the situation, then ask yourself this: In what manner will that black man respond if I tell him "monkey", for example? Will it be a reaction as in cause-effect, or will it be the result of human interpretation and the conventional use of words working in his brain. Both have different consequences.
It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."

If your unwilling to accept the responsibility that goes with Freedom of Speech - you are not ready to exercise that Freedom.