4 ms·

I am pretty sure US free speech exceptions do not prohibit threats by government to deploy the military against people, even if that is the very embodiment of a

by belorn 6y ago

I am pretty sure US free speech exceptions do not prohibit threats by government to deploy the military against people, even if that is the very embodiment of a true threat that is likely to incite imminent violence. But HN community is not against that. You can have a news article about Nation X declaring intention to send an army to against Y if people think Y deserve it. People in general love violence and encourage it when it is the right kind of violence against the right target.

jkaplowitz 6y ago
Yeah, most speech that relates to violence is neither illegal nor necessarily opposed by HN commenters (and of course plenty of us disagree with each other on what we want to tolerate). The exceptions are a lot narrower.
loopz 6y ago
Targeting own population with military is unconstitutional though, with just a few exceptions.
- belorn 6y ago
  We can define Nation X as the US and Target Y as US citizen and go down different scenarios and see when it becomes the right kind of violence. A peaceful protest (this should be universally agreed on as a very bad target for military use). Rioters that burn cars and loot stores. White supremacists marching in the street. Exact same actions as any above but we call it terrorism. US citizens doing terrorism but which is indistinguishable from regular crime. US citizens doing terrorism, where military weapons like bombs are used (we could also split this up based on what reason the terrorist have).
  - loopz 6y ago
    X=Y Target is not people, but actions in specific time and place. Measures need to be justified and scrutinized.
    - belorn 6y ago
      When people talk treating everyone equal and banning speech that incite imminent violence, they don't talk about how they want exceptions when it is justified and scrutinized to incite imminent violence. What is justified is also very subjective, an aspect which a lot of people brings up in discussions. Who get to decide when violence is justified? Is it the people, and if so, how should should we count the votes?
      - loopz 6y ago
        It is not decided by direct democracy and not by dictatorship. If people involved are unable to act responsibly, they are the wrong people for the job.

by belorn 6y ago

jkaplowitz 6y ago

Yeah, most speech that relates to violence is neither illegal nor necessarily opposed by HN commenters (and of course plenty of us disagree with each other on what we want to tolerate). The exceptions are a lot narrower.

loopz 6y ago

Targeting own population with military is unconstitutional though, with just a few exceptions.

belorn 6y ago
We can define Nation X as the US and Target Y as US citizen and go down different scenarios and see when it becomes the right kind of violence. A peaceful protest (this should be universally agreed on as a very bad target for military use). Rioters that burn cars and loot stores. White supremacists marching in the street. Exact same actions as any above but we call it terrorism. US citizens doing terrorism but which is indistinguishable from regular crime. US citizens doing terrorism, where military weapons like bombs are used (we could also split this up based on what reason the terrorist have).
- loopz 6y ago
  X=Y Target is not people, but actions in specific time and place. Measures need to be justified and scrutinized.
  - belorn 6y ago
    When people talk treating everyone equal and banning speech that incite imminent violence, they don't talk about how they want exceptions when it is justified and scrutinized to incite imminent violence. What is justified is also very subjective, an aspect which a lot of people brings up in discussions. Who get to decide when violence is justified? Is it the people, and if so, how should should we count the votes?
    - loopz 6y ago
      It is not decided by direct democracy and not by dictatorship. If people involved are unable to act responsibly, they are the wrong people for the job.