4 ms·

> We all agree that some kinds of violent speech should be suppressed. This is bad consensus-building. It is not a reflection of reality, but an attempt to str

> We all agree that some kinds of violent speech should be suppressed. This is bad consensus-building. It is not a reflection of reality, but an attempt to strongarm the reader into agreeing with a false claim by exploiting people's willingness to accept confident claims at face value.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
Do you, or anyone you know, honestly believe that the level of threat that would constitute assault in most common law jurisdictions should be treated as protected free speech? My example, of a specific, credible, actionable threat. I know plenty of people with extreme views, but "coercion by threat of violence should be legal" is not one I've heard before. It certainly is a consensus, and your denial of such is in dubious faith.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  I believe that equating credible threat with violent speech is a category error. Speech is not the only thing going on for the threat to be established as credible. Perhaps those things should be more harshly sanctioned than they are. Perhaps there are structural problems that grant enough leverage to create threat with only the outward appearance of speech. Speech alone -> the level of threat that would constitute assault in most common law jurisdictions is tantamount to AI-boxing, and while I don't consider that quite crackpot enough to dismiss out of hand, the implications are absolutely not anywhere near "we all agree" levels of consensus.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    The guy with the FAL hasn't committed any crimes, except for speaking (a threat). He can legally own a firearm, he can legally be aware of his neighbor's habits, and he can legally ask his neighbor for some cash. Yet you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that wouldn't take his statement as criminal, and at the very least use it as grounds to take him into custody. The only thing criminal committed is the speech. My "false consensus building" was the assertion that the vast majority of people are okay with that speech being criminalized. Call it "violent speech", or "speech about violence" or "speech threatening but not directly constituting violence", but at the end of the day, we're talking about speech, criminalized speech, criminalized speech that damn near everyone is in agreement should be criminalized.
    - naniwaduni 4y ago
      > Yet you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that wouldn't take his statement as criminal, and at the very least use it as grounds to take him into custody. And yet you would be hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that has ever done so, because that's not really how people make credible threats of violence for extortion. We have a lot of case law around extortion. > The only thing criminal committed is the speech. It is, in many jurisdictions, not illegal to drive. Yet it is generally illegal to drive while underage. Clearly, the only thing criminal committed is being below the driving age.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

Do you, or anyone you know, honestly believe that the level of threat that would constitute assault in most common law jurisdictions should be treated as protected free speech? My example, of a specific, credible, actionable threat. I know plenty of people with extreme views, but "coercion by threat of violence should be legal" is not one I've heard before. It certainly is a consensus, and your denial of such is in dubious faith.

naniwaduni 4y ago
I believe that equating credible threat with violent speech is a category error. Speech is not the only thing going on for the threat to be established as credible. Perhaps those things should be more harshly sanctioned than they are. Perhaps there are structural problems that grant enough leverage to create threat with only the outward appearance of speech. Speech alone -> the level of threat that would constitute assault in most common law jurisdictions is tantamount to AI-boxing, and while I don't consider that quite crackpot enough to dismiss out of hand, the implications are absolutely not anywhere near "we all agree" levels of consensus.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  The guy with the FAL hasn't committed any crimes, except for speaking (a threat). He can legally own a firearm, he can legally be aware of his neighbor's habits, and he can legally ask his neighbor for some cash. Yet you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that wouldn't take his statement as criminal, and at the very least use it as grounds to take him into custody. The only thing criminal committed is the speech. My "false consensus building" was the assertion that the vast majority of people are okay with that speech being criminalized. Call it "violent speech", or "speech about violence" or "speech threatening but not directly constituting violence", but at the end of the day, we're talking about speech, criminalized speech, criminalized speech that damn near everyone is in agreement should be criminalized.
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    > Yet you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that wouldn't take his statement as criminal, and at the very least use it as grounds to take him into custody. And yet you would be hard-pressed to find a jurisdiction that has ever done so, because that's not really how people make credible threats of violence for extortion. We have a lot of case law around extortion. > The only thing criminal committed is the speech. It is, in many jurisdictions, not illegal to drive. Yet it is generally illegal to drive while underage. Clearly, the only thing criminal committed is being below the driving age.