3 ms·
> I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence. I would not ban that either. However, if you decide
by super256 4y ago
> I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be forbidden, like threats of physical violence.
I would not ban that either. However, if you decide to make a serious threat, which takes a significant amount of energy, like doxxing and calling me on my phone to tell me you will kill me, you will have to live with the consequences of the legal system.
If you just tell me in HN comments that you will kill me and my family, I would certainly not give a damn because that's low effort.
- Loocid 4y ago>you will have to live with the consequences of the legal system. Doesn't that mean that type of speech is forbidden?
- jdbernard 4y agoThere is a difference, I think, between consequences resulting from your actions and being prevented from taking those actions at all. With regard to speech it's not a clear line, certainly, but the distinction matters, I think.
- psychlops 4y agoThen how are you differentiating banning from consequences of the legal system?
- thfuran 4y agoIn a context where "not banned" speech can be illegal, what does banning speech even mean?