7 ms·

In theory, yes, but we are also a system of due process. It's not reasonable to expect that if the law says something is illegal, and a person is shown to have

In theory, yes, but we are also a system of due process. It's not reasonable to expect that if the law says something is illegal, and a person is shown to have done it, that the good judgment of the system will understand and not prosecute. Things like self-defense and fair use are specifically encoded into the law, not just unspoken common sense. And that's not even getting into legal/political careers, lobbying, etc, that entrench the system to introduce and over-enforce technicalities. The judgment of most of the court activity is focused on whether or not someone broke the law, not whether the law is "reasonable". That's a much bigger battle that can't be reasonably expected to be fought in any individual case, and ideally should be done before signing into law, not after. The law, as written, should apply to all cases and all sides equally. Justice being blind and all. The history of free speech in the USA has had it pretty wide open, and these issues are about whether and how much to constrain it. That means criminalizing or penalizing in some way speech that used to be free, bringing up all the issues above and in my last post.

didibus 9y ago
Is that so of civil law? It was my understanding civil law is specifically designed for this, that is, promoting civility amongst people. Courteous debate and disagreement is possible, even if one argues the other is a monkey. Such speech promotes arguments and content over appeals to hateful emotions, ridicule, and fear. The latter type of speech, to me, are actually psychological weapon of anti-free speech. They target someones else thoughts and speech, by inciting fear and blocking out reason. Insulting someone, calling them names, threatening their well being, shouting at them, and inciting others to do the same, those are all tactics to shut out the targeted individuals. Make their voices irrelevant, ignored, and their will to speak smaller in fear of retribution. Now I think we're smart enough to find regulation that are smart enough to restrict only that kind of speech, and if it's non obvious, I'm okay sitting on the side of allowing it. But some of today's speech is just blatantly the latter, and thats true in all political spheres, and even in most apolitical spheres.
- white-flame 9y ago
  "Civil" law (person vs person) is for damages which aren't "Criminal" (government vs person), usually disagreements that leave one party burdened with countable damages and seeking restitution from the other. Sure, if somebody uses manipulative speech to instigate damage that might go to civil court, but that's because of the damage, not because of the speech. I have no idea why you think those things you list should be legally actionable in and of themselves. The fact that people are petty and appeal to lesser things like this are really cultural failings, not legal failings. You can't legislate people into being (subjectively) well-tempered and reasonable in their beliefs and daily interactions. We have restrictions on Commercial Speech such that commercial exchange and competition is to be around truthfully presented products, which is pretty objective. Stuff like libel also hinges on the truth of what's being said which again can usually be tested. The issues you list are far more nebulous and subjective. Anybody could claim that they felt threatened by another's ideas, claiming a conspiracy to silence them exists, etc. These exact tactics are currently in use to silence and manipulate others in the same way. It's simply a war of propaganda on both sides of these "tools". I think the legal notion of none of this stuff mattering unless actual damage is incurred, or actionable threats of real damage have been made, is reasonable. Otherwise, you're falling into pre-crime fallacies. And besides, let's not continue to expand the litigiousness of our society by making every nitpick and disagreement a legal issue.
  - didibus 9y ago
    Failing of the culture for sure. But take the public indecency laws for example. Or the road laws, like laws against jaywalking and other obedience laws of that sort. The smoking and drinking laws are also good examples. Gambling laws. Harassment laws. Those all impose conduct on people, work reasonably well, and rarely are misused. > You can't legislate people into being (subjectively) well-tempered and reasonable in their beliefs and daily interactions. I'm not trying to do that. I think speech targetting a sizable audience, like in media outlets, public quorum, internet forums, should not be allowed to insult or threaten a group, and shouldn't be allowed to entice others to those acts. I think this could be legislated, and I believe cases of abuse would be rare, and in those cases, I think legal recourse can be used to have a proper verdict. You're still allowed to express all matters of unreasonable opinion. You're just not allowed to verbally attack someone. Which I believe most American would culturaly favor. I think it's in our values that we condemn verbal abuse. > These exact tactics are currently in use to silence and manipulate others in the same way. I'm curious to learn more abiut this. Can you provide examples? It's very possible I'm being naive here, and I'm just not aware of these instances and their impact.

didibus 9y ago

Is that so of civil law? It was my understanding civil law is specifically designed for this, that is, promoting civility amongst people. Courteous debate and disagreement is possible, even if one argues the other is a monkey. Such speech promotes arguments and content over appeals to hateful emotions, ridicule, and fear. The latter type of speech, to me, are actually psychological weapon of anti-free speech. They target someones else thoughts and speech, by inciting fear and blocking out reason. Insulting someone, calling them names, threatening their well being, shouting at them, and inciting others to do the same, those are all tactics to shut out the targeted individuals. Make their voices irrelevant, ignored, and their will to speak smaller in fear of retribution. Now I think we're smart enough to find regulation that are smart enough to restrict only that kind of speech, and if it's non obvious, I'm okay sitting on the side of allowing it. But some of today's speech is just blatantly the latter, and thats true in all political spheres, and even in most apolitical spheres.

white-flame 9y ago
"Civil" law (person vs person) is for damages which aren't "Criminal" (government vs person), usually disagreements that leave one party burdened with countable damages and seeking restitution from the other. Sure, if somebody uses manipulative speech to instigate damage that might go to civil court, but that's because of the damage, not because of the speech. I have no idea why you think those things you list should be legally actionable in and of themselves. The fact that people are petty and appeal to lesser things like this are really cultural failings, not legal failings. You can't legislate people into being (subjectively) well-tempered and reasonable in their beliefs and daily interactions. We have restrictions on Commercial Speech such that commercial exchange and competition is to be around truthfully presented products, which is pretty objective. Stuff like libel also hinges on the truth of what's being said which again can usually be tested. The issues you list are far more nebulous and subjective. Anybody could claim that they felt threatened by another's ideas, claiming a conspiracy to silence them exists, etc. These exact tactics are currently in use to silence and manipulate others in the same way. It's simply a war of propaganda on both sides of these "tools". I think the legal notion of none of this stuff mattering unless actual damage is incurred, or actionable threats of real damage have been made, is reasonable. Otherwise, you're falling into pre-crime fallacies. And besides, let's not continue to expand the litigiousness of our society by making every nitpick and disagreement a legal issue.
- didibus 9y ago
  Failing of the culture for sure. But take the public indecency laws for example. Or the road laws, like laws against jaywalking and other obedience laws of that sort. The smoking and drinking laws are also good examples. Gambling laws. Harassment laws. Those all impose conduct on people, work reasonably well, and rarely are misused. > You can't legislate people into being (subjectively) well-tempered and reasonable in their beliefs and daily interactions. I'm not trying to do that. I think speech targetting a sizable audience, like in media outlets, public quorum, internet forums, should not be allowed to insult or threaten a group, and shouldn't be allowed to entice others to those acts. I think this could be legislated, and I believe cases of abuse would be rare, and in those cases, I think legal recourse can be used to have a proper verdict. You're still allowed to express all matters of unreasonable opinion. You're just not allowed to verbally attack someone. Which I believe most American would culturaly favor. I think it's in our values that we condemn verbal abuse. > These exact tactics are currently in use to silence and manipulate others in the same way. I'm curious to learn more abiut this. Can you provide examples? It's very possible I'm being naive here, and I'm just not aware of these instances and their impact.