4 ms·
Personally, this seems simple. All speech is protected, you should in fact be able to post over 9000 messages in a threatening or harassing manor, whether the
by biturd 15y ago
Personally, this seems simple. All speech is protected, you should in fact be able to post over 9000 messages in a threatening or harassing manor, whether the medium be twitter or some other online venue. Context is the tricky part, and no law will ever be able to define the posters contextual intent.
It would be too challenging to police resulting in far too many regulations defining what is/isn't acceptable use of freedom of speech.
Where do you draw the line? Twitter, message boards, email, web page, reporters, etc?
Enacted laws will amount to a game of cat and mouse where the cat is chasing every edge case possible. The First Amendment would be reduced to what the USPTO has become; A joke.
If the recipient feels violated, unsafe, or harassed, they should file a restraining order. They should use the tools that we have had at our disposal since the beginnings of law.
Restraining orders put due burden on the complainant, preventing frivolous complaints clogging our legal system, generating a barrier in which there need be noteworthy substance to the claim. If it is truly trivial, the complainant would not bother to take the time and expense ( http://aol.it/rtzBsd http://aol.it/rtzBsd ) to file a restraining order, let alone go through the process of possible embarrassment for being what amounts to a crybaby.
Public figures, with their in place legal teams and massive resources must learn to thicken their skin. Unfortunately, it comes with the territory. A sanitation worker has to deal with less than ideal work as a result of the carer choice they made, the same holds true for those in the public space.
- sliverstorm 15y agoI need a little clarification. Are you essentially arguing that you should be able to say anything anywhere, and be judged at an appropriate date for it, rather than "prematurely"?
- biturd 15y agoHmm, I guess I am. But isn't that how it is now? Does free speech really have any boundaries? Aside from the oh so taboo one about the President, what is it that you can't say without getting into trouble right off the bat? Say all you want, there may be repercussions, but that is something that will have to be battles out in a court or some other legal manor. At least, that is how I have always looked at it. Sure, you don;t want to yell "fire" in a crowded building if there is no fire, but telling someone they are an asshole on twitter should be fine. One may take it literally in that you think they are an asshole as in a literal anus body part, which could defame them in some way, which would be something to deal with in the courts. If you spit out some nonsense about wanting to harm someone on twitter, most would assume it was in jest, or that it was an extreme way of expressions anger or frustration. Most people don't go around making serious claims of causing someone harm in a public forum, they do so in secret so they can get away with it. Maybe I am overlooking something, but as I see it, we have always been able to have the freedom to say whatever we want, with some very few restrictions that amount to common sense.