2 ms·

thanks. > He was arrested on May 30, and the signs were found in his home.[59] Truelove was convicted of the theft and sentenced to 12 months in prison.[60] >

thanks. > He was arrested on May 30, and the signs were found in his home.[59] Truelove was convicted of the theft and sentenced to 12 months in prison.[60] > Mills entered an Alford plea and was thus found guilty; he was given a suspended sentence of one year in jail and two years' probation. > Lucy Richards, a 57-year-old woman from Tampa, was charged with four counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce for sending death threats to Lenny Pozner, So system is working as designed. no? Is this not enough deterrent for people to not harass people ? Do you think these three incidents from 4 years ago warrant killing free speech. Do you think these are instances serious enough to sacrifice free speech? They don't even look that much of a big deal based on the sentences given out.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
The system is only working if you view this as a detailed recording of every instance of harassment. That seems implausible, and the various citations seem to support the idea there is a lot more harassment happening. Even if you do think this is all the harassment that has happened, the continued coverage means more harassment is likely. Next time the death threats may not be caught in time.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > Next time the death threats may not be caught in time. Thats some strange logic. You have to weigh pros and cons. We allow people to drink, a recreational activity and thousands of people die( actual harm) every year from DUIs. Shouldn't we go ban alcohol consumption/bars then. Surely a recreational activity is less important than something fundamental like free speech.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >Thats some strange logic. You have to weigh pros and cons. Your argument was that "these incidents don't seem like that big of a deal." So in your fictional world where those three incidents are the only harassment that has happened, it's still a big deal as the system may fail the next time. In reality, there is already a mountain of harassment that the system failed to punish. Free speech does not cover harassment.
    - dominotw 8y ago
      You didn't answer why we allow alcohol consumption.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Much like speech, misuse of alcohol is already against the law. And people that have shown themselves to be unable to consume alcohol safely can find themselves stripped of various freedoms. Your argument is all over the place. From "no harm is being done" to "the harm is limited and already being punished" and now "harmful behavior should be tolerated."

boomboomsubban 8y ago

The system is only working if you view this as a detailed recording of every instance of harassment. That seems implausible, and the various citations seem to support the idea there is a lot more harassment happening. Even if you do think this is all the harassment that has happened, the continued coverage means more harassment is likely. Next time the death threats may not be caught in time.

dominotw 8y ago
> Next time the death threats may not be caught in time. Thats some strange logic. You have to weigh pros and cons. We allow people to drink, a recreational activity and thousands of people die( actual harm) every year from DUIs. Shouldn't we go ban alcohol consumption/bars then. Surely a recreational activity is less important than something fundamental like free speech.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >Thats some strange logic. You have to weigh pros and cons. Your argument was that "these incidents don't seem like that big of a deal." So in your fictional world where those three incidents are the only harassment that has happened, it's still a big deal as the system may fail the next time. In reality, there is already a mountain of harassment that the system failed to punish. Free speech does not cover harassment.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    You didn't answer why we allow alcohol consumption.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      Much like speech, misuse of alcohol is already against the law. And people that have shown themselves to be unable to consume alcohol safely can find themselves stripped of various freedoms. Your argument is all over the place. From "no harm is being done" to "the harm is limited and already being punished" and now "harmful behavior should be tolerated."