3 ms·
It sounds like you will protect free speech by suppressing certain forms of free speech? I would not necessarily be against anti-harassment/doxxing laws, and s
by Klinky 6y ago
It sounds like you will protect free speech by suppressing certain forms of free speech?
I would not necessarily be against anti-harassment/doxxing laws, and stronger employee protections around firings. However, also stronger hate speech laws around protected classes. It's a double edged sword.
- throwaway894345 6y agoThreats and intimidation don't constitute free speech, even when veiled. Note that I don't think anyone is advocating for more/harsher laws to protect free speech (although these might be welcomed by some), only appealing for a cultural shift away from cancellation and toward free-speech values.
- Klinky 6y agoI believe free speech does not cover "true threats". I don't think a consumer complaint threatening to not do business is going to be considered a "true threat" against a company.
- throwaway894345 6y agoFree speech doesn't cover any kind of threats. We tolerate "veiled threats" to the extent that we can't confirm that they are threats, and they are difficult to confirm by design and definition. They exploit our presumption of innocence.
- Klinky 6y agoThreats of all kinds are made every day, and often in completely legal contexts. Threats of violence are often less tolerated, but even in some contexts protected under freedom of speech.
- throwaway894345 6y agoTake care not to conflate free speech principles with legal protections for free speech.
- Klinky 6y agoIt sounds like you want people to censor themselves in a way you find appropriate, based on what you believe freedom of speech means.