10 ms·

Most of the behavior that this article is criticizing is not a crime in the US. Yes, “I’ll come to your house and murder your family” is a crime, but “I hope yo

Most of the behavior that this article is criticizing is not a crime in the US. Yes, “I’ll come to your house and murder your family” is a crime, but “I hope you die alone of cancer” is not, nor is “People like this should be stabbed in the face.”

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
emiliobumachar 8y ago
Keyword is "most". All we'd need is a handful of well publicized arrests over a couple of years. I assume there's plenty of “I’ll come to your house and murder your family” or similar if one were to do a through search for it.
- drb91 8y ago
  How would this dissuade people where it is legal? How do people distinguish between (subjective) humor and an actual threat where it’s illegal? Do they outlaw all jokes about killing?
  - rwmj 8y ago
    By common sense, and where that fails, the courts and jury system.
    - drb91 8y ago
      Wait people are dissuaded by common sense? I’m not sure i follow.
      - rwmj 8y ago
        I was answering your second question.
        drb91 8y ago
        Ahh. Well, I do not appreciate the snarky uninformative reply. Have a nice day.
qahv66 8y ago
Why should saying “I hope you die alone of cancer” be illegal?
- berbec 8y ago
  It should not be. Society should rightly shun you for it, but government should not make it illegal.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    Why not? What useful purpose does it serve? And if none what's the harm of banning it? Is it equally not right to ban saying "black people should die alone of cancer" to a black man?
    - setr 8y ago
      re free speech, because its difficult to find the line between actually harmful, and non-harmful, and declared harmful due to ulterior motives and the degree to which you hold that view (that its dangerous precedent, and difficult to stop once the ball gets rolling), is the degree to which you accept hate speech banning. But imo yes, in general, if theres no backing threat, then the government should not have any opinion on such a saying. Individuals and corporations can, should, and do, but the government has no business regulating such a thing.
      - scotty79 8y ago
        I still don't see why wishing someone dead or expressing he should die should be treated differently than empty threat to kill him. Or why you should allow people or corporations to enforce a ban but not government. There are already things you cannot say. Why not add wishing someone harm to them? What useful purpose does it serve?
        setr 8y ago
        >I still don't see why wishing someone dead or expressing he should die should be treated differently than empty threat to kill him I think I misunderstood your position; I'm in agreement with that statement: there is no difference, and neither should be punished or regulated, unless theres evidence of there being a real chance to transform into (or cause) actions. >Or why you should allow people or corporations to enforce a ban but not government. The federal government offers a space for the entire population; corporations offer a space for a (very) limited subset, and individuals offer a space for those in their household. Due to the sweeping nature of its power (and its slow speed to update), its by far preferable to play conservatively. If you don't have a good reason to regulate, the government should not regulate. The same applies less to corporations, due to limited power, the general availability for its subjects to move to other corporations (which exists for country movement, but much more difficult than corporate). >There are already things you cannot say. Why not add wishing someone harm to them? What useful purpose does it serve? Well, you want to limit the amount of speech regulation in general, because again its difficult to regulate, difficult to decide what to regulate, and almost trivially easy to abuse. The problem isn't that keeping that particular statement is beneficial, but that banning such a statement, and statements like it, is prone to buggy behavior. And of course you want to avoid as much as possible reaching the point where you can no longer criticize the federal government, and the more you regulate speech, the more stable that path becomes. And the federal government is naturally incentivized to take that path if it can: it makes its life far, far easier.
lotu 8y ago
The article isn't actually specific on this. They mention death threats but don't quote any. (I'm betting Mr Filardi didn't keep a scrapbook of death threats, and with his facebook account gone the record is gone too.) Given the number of people involved in the tendency of people social media presume they are immune from consequences, I feel really confident that dozens of people made comments that went over the line and would be clear prosecution cases. But if we as a society wanted to we could have a lawyer comb through all the comments sent to people that are victims of online mobs and pick out the ones that constitute real prosecutable things.
olefoo 8y ago
"""People who fly an American flag from their pickup; but park that pickup under a Confederate flag are traitors. And should be put down like rabid dogs.""" - Diogenes Might be a sentiment I agree with, but is not one I would express openly without a certain rhetorical distancing for fear of the retaliation that would be attached. Opinion based violence is a thing. Check your privilege levels; what opinions would people feel unsafe expressing in your vicinity?
- subjectsigma 8y ago
  >Check your privilege levels; what opinions would people feel unsafe expressing in your vicinity? This is a new and perverse way of thinking about "privilege" that I've never seen before. I am someone that certain people would consider "privileged" and I've never had anyone ask me that question. (Guess my background.) There's plenty of opinions that I would fear expressing based on my circumstances, things I only talk about with very close friends. And legitimate fears - being fired or evicted. To me, it seems like people who talk about "privelege", especially "white privilege", sometimes over-estimate how far that takes one (he's literally immune to self-censorship!!1!). Maybe some are, but I really doubt it.
  - olefoo 8y ago
    Privilege is always a matter of context and a consequence of the power you can or could exert over those around you. Becoming aware of the privilege you hold gives you all sorts of insight into how the world around you really functions. That insight does not unfortunately; have a moral valence. There are plenty of people who use their insight into the exercise of social power purely for self-interested gain. They can do enormous damage to the organizations that allow such people to accrue power if their self-interest differs from the organizations intended goals.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

emiliobumachar 8y ago

Keyword is "most". All we'd need is a handful of well publicized arrests over a couple of years. I assume there's plenty of “I’ll come to your house and murder your family” or similar if one were to do a through search for it.

drb91 8y ago
How would this dissuade people where it is legal? How do people distinguish between (subjective) humor and an actual threat where it’s illegal? Do they outlaw all jokes about killing?
- rwmj 8y ago
  By common sense, and where that fails, the courts and jury system.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Wait people are dissuaded by common sense? I’m not sure i follow.
    - rwmj 8y ago
      I was answering your second question.
      - drb91 8y ago
        Ahh. Well, I do not appreciate the snarky uninformative reply. Have a nice day.

qahv66 8y ago

Why should saying “I hope you die alone of cancer” be illegal?

berbec 8y ago
It should not be. Society should rightly shun you for it, but government should not make it illegal.
- scotty79 8y ago
  Why not? What useful purpose does it serve? And if none what's the harm of banning it? Is it equally not right to ban saying "black people should die alone of cancer" to a black man?
  - setr 8y ago
    re free speech, because its difficult to find the line between actually harmful, and non-harmful, and declared harmful due to ulterior motives and the degree to which you hold that view (that its dangerous precedent, and difficult to stop once the ball gets rolling), is the degree to which you accept hate speech banning. But imo yes, in general, if theres no backing threat, then the government should not have any opinion on such a saying. Individuals and corporations can, should, and do, but the government has no business regulating such a thing.
    - scotty79 8y ago
      I still don't see why wishing someone dead or expressing he should die should be treated differently than empty threat to kill him. Or why you should allow people or corporations to enforce a ban but not government. There are already things you cannot say. Why not add wishing someone harm to them? What useful purpose does it serve?
      - setr 8y ago
        >I still don't see why wishing someone dead or expressing he should die should be treated differently than empty threat to kill him I think I misunderstood your position; I'm in agreement with that statement: there is no difference, and neither should be punished or regulated, unless theres evidence of there being a real chance to transform into (or cause) actions. >Or why you should allow people or corporations to enforce a ban but not government. The federal government offers a space for the entire population; corporations offer a space for a (very) limited subset, and individuals offer a space for those in their household. Due to the sweeping nature of its power (and its slow speed to update), its by far preferable to play conservatively. If you don't have a good reason to regulate, the government should not regulate. The same applies less to corporations, due to limited power, the general availability for its subjects to move to other corporations (which exists for country movement, but much more difficult than corporate). >There are already things you cannot say. Why not add wishing someone harm to them? What useful purpose does it serve? Well, you want to limit the amount of speech regulation in general, because again its difficult to regulate, difficult to decide what to regulate, and almost trivially easy to abuse. The problem isn't that keeping that particular statement is beneficial, but that banning such a statement, and statements like it, is prone to buggy behavior. And of course you want to avoid as much as possible reaching the point where you can no longer criticize the federal government, and the more you regulate speech, the more stable that path becomes. And the federal government is naturally incentivized to take that path if it can: it makes its life far, far easier.

lotu 8y ago

The article isn't actually specific on this. They mention death threats but don't quote any. (I'm betting Mr Filardi didn't keep a scrapbook of death threats, and with his facebook account gone the record is gone too.) Given the number of people involved in the tendency of people social media presume they are immune from consequences, I feel really confident that dozens of people made comments that went over the line and would be clear prosecution cases. But if we as a society wanted to we could have a lawyer comb through all the comments sent to people that are victims of online mobs and pick out the ones that constitute real prosecutable things.

olefoo 8y ago

"""People who fly an American flag from their pickup; but park that pickup under a Confederate flag are traitors. And should be put down like rabid dogs.""" - Diogenes Might be a sentiment I agree with, but is not one I would express openly without a certain rhetorical distancing for fear of the retaliation that would be attached. Opinion based violence is a thing. Check your privilege levels; what opinions would people feel unsafe expressing in your vicinity?

subjectsigma 8y ago
>Check your privilege levels; what opinions would people feel unsafe expressing in your vicinity? This is a new and perverse way of thinking about "privilege" that I've never seen before. I am someone that certain people would consider "privileged" and I've never had anyone ask me that question. (Guess my background.) There's plenty of opinions that I would fear expressing based on my circumstances, things I only talk about with very close friends. And legitimate fears - being fired or evicted. To me, it seems like people who talk about "privelege", especially "white privilege", sometimes over-estimate how far that takes one (he's literally immune to self-censorship!!1!). Maybe some are, but I really doubt it.
- olefoo 8y ago
  Privilege is always a matter of context and a consequence of the power you can or could exert over those around you. Becoming aware of the privilege you hold gives you all sorts of insight into how the world around you really functions. That insight does not unfortunately; have a moral valence. There are plenty of people who use their insight into the exercise of social power purely for self-interested gain. They can do enormous damage to the organizations that allow such people to accrue power if their self-interest differs from the organizations intended goals.