My apologies for troubling all of you about this, but I'm looking
for examples of an argument that runs more or less like this:
"Even speech that advocates crime can serve the search for truth /
marketplace of ideas / democratic self-government. Such speech often
carries with it legitimate critiques of the existing laws, as well as the
illegitimate call for violating them. While the speech may persuade a few
listeners to commit crimes, the very same speech may persuade many others to
take peaceful steps to change the law. And though people could in theory
make the same critiques without the calls for illegal action, in practice
such self-censored speech wouldn't be as effective even in its legitimate
critiques, because [listeners won't fully perceive the rage behind the
speaker's argument / the criticisms won't seem as authentic / etc.]."
I'm pretty sure I've heard this in various sources, but I can't seem
to find them, and I thought someone on the list might be kind enough to help
me out. I am *not* looking for other arguments about the benefits of such
speech, e.g., the safety valve argument, the argument that only conflict
with bad ideas can really sharpen our understanding of the good ideas, and
so on. I'm focusing specifically on the "dual-use product" argument -- that
the speech may persuade some people to act lawfully, even though it may
persuade others to act lawlessly. Thanks in advance,
Eugene
