4 ms·

You both have good arguments, but I would tend to agree with lone_haxx0r, even if his idea is maybe not practical. He is comparing sending IP messages to freed

by antpls 7y ago

You both have good arguments, but I would tend to agree with lone_haxx0r, even if his idea is maybe not practical. He is comparing sending IP messages to freedom of speech. The debate is : are you for full freedom of speech or not? In many countries with high level of freedom of speech, you can still be sued for just saying things : wrongly accusing someone, sending death threats, disclosing under NDA, etc The logic of lone_haxx0r is noting that, physically killing someone is already illegal and punished, so why is sending death threats also illegal ? We all know that it's for peace of mind of people, and also probably based on statistical evidences that some jokes may have turned bad. Anyway, this pseudo freedom of speech is beneficial for rich people and big corporations as you can just throw more money to defend yourself with more words, and attack anyone who have a valuable piece of knowledge to your organization. Snowden and Assange are good examples of why we should further liberate freedom of speech. Their intent was to inform people of a danger, but what they did (hacking) is so far considered illegal. So, yes, we can charge people based on their intents, but in practice (for example if someone isn't able to express their intents, or in case of a government secret agency) it doesn't respect freedom of people.

Quanttek 7y ago
lone_haxx0r is not making an argument about free speech. He is just demonstrating his utter lack of knowledge about law, philosophy, society, and politics. Where does this distinction between physical and "digital" actions come from? Breaking into a server is an action, it's not speech. There's a big difference between sending a chat message (x no. of TCP packages) and sending C&C commands (also x no. of TCP packages). Just because you're technically only sending "information", doesn't demolish the action-speech distinction. Heck, there are theories in physics basically stating that our whole physical world is best understood as only a bunch of information. But that doesn't make the action-speech distinction mute. There are already various theories of the (moral) foundations of law (see philosophy of law, jurisprudence). Talking about an "objective" foundation (whatever that means) that somehow needs to specify the speed of projectiles seems utterly impractical. We can just check whether harm has been done and what the intention of the perpetrator was (mens rea): Don't you think there should be a big legal difference between someone accidentally ramming a car and someone trying to murder the driver by ramming?

by antpls 7y ago

Quanttek 7y ago

lone_haxx0r is not making an argument about free speech. He is just demonstrating his utter lack of knowledge about law, philosophy, society, and politics. Where does this distinction between physical and "digital" actions come from? Breaking into a server is an action, it's not speech. There's a big difference between sending a chat message (x no. of TCP packages) and sending C&C commands (also x no. of TCP packages). Just because you're technically only sending "information", doesn't demolish the action-speech distinction. Heck, there are theories in physics basically stating that our whole physical world is best understood as only a bunch of information. But that doesn't make the action-speech distinction mute. There are already various theories of the (moral) foundations of law (see philosophy of law, jurisprudence). Talking about an "objective" foundation (whatever that means) that somehow needs to specify the speed of projectiles seems utterly impractical. We can just check whether harm has been done and what the intention of the perpetrator was (mens rea): Don't you think there should be a big legal difference between someone accidentally ramming a car and someone trying to murder the driver by ramming?