37 ms·

As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.

by atomi 8y ago

slg 8y ago
We have to separate the words from the action of saying those words. The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. However, often the words themselves are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal. Using your example, imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7. The words themselves might not be a problem but it doesn't mean they can't be charged with any number of crimes from disturbing the peace to harassment. Social media bots can function in a similar way.
- atomi 8y ago
  > imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7 People protest all the time in similar ways. Also, you can block people/bots on social media.
  - slg 8y ago
    >People protest all the time in similar ways. Sure, that is why protesters are routinely arrested even though the first amendment exists. >Also, you can block people/bots on social media. The sole responsibility of policing and punishing this behavior should not fall on the victims of this behavior.
    - zdragnar 8y ago
      Protesters are routinely arrested (in the US) for things like blocking traffic, unlawfully carrying weapons or other safety issues, not because they are voicing disagreement with "the man". Blocking someone is neither policing nor punishing, it's simply ignoring; actual censorship still falls to the platform itself.
- jack9 8y ago
  > The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. The idea of a nebulous "illegality" is simplistic and wrong, in the US. They might open an individual to civil liability, but they aren't in violation of a criminal code, nor tort law. > That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal Speech is always legal, in the US. What you think "legal" means is up for debate.
  - karmelapple 8y ago
    Not all speech is always legal in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Illegal_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Illegal_speech_in_the...
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      Note that the cases where speech is not legal are significantly more narrow than most people think they are. The category you link to has only 11 pages, and half of them are court cases where the Supreme Court decided against limiting free speech. (In particular, the famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote is from a 1919 case that was overturned in 1969, and shouting fire in a crowded theater is not, in fact, illegal. Inadvisable, probably, and likely to get you banned from that theater for life, but not illegal.)
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7 Around the clock shouting in residential neighborhoods is likely to get you fined for disturbing the peace. But, you can send hate mail, or shout in some public spaces and be just fine. Sending angry emails or tweets sounds most like the former.
foolrush 8y ago
Depending on the words, it is entirely illegal in many countries around the world. The USA is behind the curve on that.
- slg 8y ago
  I don't want to make a value judgement by using a word like "behind", but I do think most Americans are simply not aware of how extreme our country's stance on free speech is compared to the rest of the world. Countries like the UK, France, and Germany seem to function just fine with their more restrictive laws on speech.
  - foolrush 8y ago
    Look to Germany. I said "behind" because it requires a certain national hubris to not acknowledge the horrific turn of events that came out of a country, and in turn, acknowledge what they have learned from it.
  - h4b4n3r0 8y ago
    Could be that it’s only “fine” in the short term. Just 80 years ago Germany was very far from “fine”.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
      There were a lot of hate-speech laws when Hitler came to power. He even used the fact he was prevented from speaking publicly as propaganda. And yes, a lot of legislation of Weimar to censor spoken and written word has been extended by the Nazis after they came to power. People arguing for more moderation and more censorship generally lack perspective when they refer to fascism in the same breath. Free speech is a most effective disinfectant against fascism.
      - foolrush 8y ago

As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.

by atomi 8y ago

As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.

slg 8y ago

We have to separate the words from the action of saying those words. The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. However, often the words themselves are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal. Using your example, imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7. The words themselves might not be a problem but it doesn't mean they can't be charged with any number of crimes from disturbing the peace to harassment. Social media bots can function in a similar way.

atomi 8y ago
> imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7 People protest all the time in similar ways. Also, you can block people/bots on social media.
- slg 8y ago
  >People protest all the time in similar ways. Sure, that is why protesters are routinely arrested even though the first amendment exists. >Also, you can block people/bots on social media. The sole responsibility of policing and punishing this behavior should not fall on the victims of this behavior.
  - zdragnar 8y ago
    Protesters are routinely arrested (in the US) for things like blocking traffic, unlawfully carrying weapons or other safety issues, not because they are voicing disagreement with "the man". Blocking someone is neither policing nor punishing, it's simply ignoring; actual censorship still falls to the platform itself.
jack9 8y ago
> The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. The idea of a nebulous "illegality" is simplistic and wrong, in the US. They might open an individual to civil liability, but they aren't in violation of a criminal code, nor tort law. > That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal Speech is always legal, in the US. What you think "legal" means is up for debate.
- karmelapple 8y ago
  Not all speech is always legal in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Illegal_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Illegal_speech_in_the...
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Note that the cases where speech is not legal are significantly more narrow than most people think they are. The category you link to has only 11 pages, and half of them are court cases where the Supreme Court decided against limiting free speech. (In particular, the famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote is from a 1919 case that was overturned in 1969, and shouting fire in a crowded theater is not, in fact, illegal. Inadvisable, probably, and likely to get you banned from that theater for life, but not illegal.)
paulddraper 8y ago
> someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7 Around the clock shouting in residential neighborhoods is likely to get you fined for disturbing the peace. But, you can send hate mail, or shout in some public spaces and be just fine. Sending angry emails or tweets sounds most like the former.

foolrush 8y ago

Depending on the words, it is entirely illegal in many countries around the world. The USA is behind the curve on that.

slg 8y ago
I don't want to make a value judgement by using a word like "behind", but I do think most Americans are simply not aware of how extreme our country's stance on free speech is compared to the rest of the world. Countries like the UK, France, and Germany seem to function just fine with their more restrictive laws on speech.
- foolrush 8y ago
  Look to Germany. I said "behind" because it requires a certain national hubris to not acknowledge the horrific turn of events that came out of a country, and in turn, acknowledge what they have learned from it.
- h4b4n3r0 8y ago
  Could be that it’s only “fine” in the short term. Just 80 years ago Germany was very far from “fine”.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    There were a lot of hate-speech laws when Hitler came to power. He even used the fact he was prevented from speaking publicly as propaganda. And yes, a lot of legislation of Weimar to censor spoken and written word has been extended by the Nazis after they came to power. People arguing for more moderation and more censorship generally lack perspective when they refer to fascism in the same breath. Free speech is a most effective disinfectant against fascism.
    - foolrush 8y ago