3 ms·

In America we seem to have a fairly decent handle on those issues. Exceptions apply of course. We are now dealing with edge cases such as the infamous baker ref

In America we seem to have a fairly decent handle on those issues. Exceptions apply of course. We are now dealing with edge cases such as the infamous baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. The main issues such as fraud, threats, etc. are handled pretty well via existing law.

dbrueck 4y ago
Slight correction: the baker refused to bake a cake celebrating a gay marriage (i.e. the refusal was not about who was asking for it but what was being asked for).
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  Yes, you are right. If I remember correctly he did offer to sell them a premade generic cake, he just did not want to create a custom one for the wedding. My memory may be faded though.
majormajor 4y ago
Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures? I see more "grudging acceptance" than any sort of good control. And if that's what the people want, that's fine. But in my view, if we wanted to do better on those things, we should have the freedom as a society to do those things. That's the place I argue against "free speech absolutism" from. Would we then change our mind later, or put different regulations in place? Quite likely! But that's perfectly fine. The only way to not change is to die.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  I think so, all of the items you mentioned are illegal and punished by the law. Laws can only be enforced after a crime has been committed, not really sure what you are advocating for.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    Things like "puffery" and other "I wasn't being serious" defenses. Good luck prosecuting those things when everyone can hide behind "speech alone is harmless." Note also that the comment I was originally replying to was saying we already have too many restrictions on speech. So they'd presumably want to loosen those things even more.
    - gmarx 4y ago
      Per my other comment, you cannot hide behind "speech alone is harmless". If a reasonable person would think you were joking it might be a defense but if you took the money anyway, I doubt that defense would hold up. We could easily make the penalty for SWATting life in prison. If you got caught the only free speech defense I could imagine would be that you sincerely believed that SWAT was needed and you were mistaken. Sometimes that defense would work, but I can imagine all kinds of scenarios in which the defense would be useless, e.g. you did it to the same guy multiple times, or you don't live anywhere near the location you sent SWAT to
- SllX 4y ago
  > Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures? No, but none of those are free speech issues. Swatting involves deceiving law enforcement; ICOs were something nobody with any real law enforcement or policy power understood well at the time but they’ve been taking the time to learn (emphasis on time) and death threats are generally more an issue of resources. Any dumbass can create an anonymous email address and send threats. Unmasking all of the dumbasses willing to send them is generally more resource intensive than providing temporary protection and investigating the veracity of the threats or the likelihood they will be carried out; but if you did unmask them it would typically mean at minimum a trip to the psych ward for them to be held and evaluated.

dbrueck 4y ago

Slight correction: the baker refused to bake a cake celebrating a gay marriage (i.e. the refusal was not about who was asking for it but what was being asked for).

wonderwonder 4y ago
Yes, you are right. If I remember correctly he did offer to sell them a premade generic cake, he just did not want to create a custom one for the wedding. My memory may be faded though.

majormajor 4y ago

Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures? I see more "grudging acceptance" than any sort of good control. And if that's what the people want, that's fine. But in my view, if we wanted to do better on those things, we should have the freedom as a society to do those things. That's the place I argue against "free speech absolutism" from. Would we then change our mind later, or put different regulations in place? Quite likely! But that's perfectly fine. The only way to not change is to die.

wonderwonder 4y ago
I think so, all of the items you mentioned are illegal and punished by the law. Laws can only be enforced after a crime has been committed, not really sure what you are advocating for.
- majormajor 4y ago
  Things like "puffery" and other "I wasn't being serious" defenses. Good luck prosecuting those things when everyone can hide behind "speech alone is harmless." Note also that the comment I was originally replying to was saying we already have too many restrictions on speech. So they'd presumably want to loosen those things even more.
  - gmarx 4y ago
    Per my other comment, you cannot hide behind "speech alone is harmless". If a reasonable person would think you were joking it might be a defense but if you took the money anyway, I doubt that defense would hold up. We could easily make the penalty for SWATting life in prison. If you got caught the only free speech defense I could imagine would be that you sincerely believed that SWAT was needed and you were mistaken. Sometimes that defense would work, but I can imagine all kinds of scenarios in which the defense would be useless, e.g. you did it to the same guy multiple times, or you don't live anywhere near the location you sent SWAT to
SllX 4y ago
> Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures? No, but none of those are free speech issues. Swatting involves deceiving law enforcement; ICOs were something nobody with any real law enforcement or policy power understood well at the time but they’ve been taking the time to learn (emphasis on time) and death threats are generally more an issue of resources. Any dumbass can create an anonymous email address and send threats. Unmasking all of the dumbasses willing to send them is generally more resource intensive than providing temporary protection and investigating the veracity of the threats or the likelihood they will be carried out; but if you did unmask them it would typically mean at minimum a trip to the psych ward for them to be held and evaluated.