3 ms·
Free speech is not enshrined in law the way you think it is. Try yelling how the Holocaust didn't happen in a German town square. It also has consequences. You
by quantified 3y ago
Free speech is not enshrined in law the way you think it is. Try yelling how the Holocaust didn't happen in a German town square.
It also has consequences. You are literally saying things to people's faces, they can see yours. So if you start spouting your protected "kill all n*** and kikes" speech, they can follow you back home. Social media is populated by bots, sock puppets and impersonators, very different.
- Pannoniae 3y agoYeah and 1. "Kill all X" is almost nowhere protected legally as speech. That's calls for violence, which falls under either terrorism or hate speech laws. 2. "Following you home" is in best case harassment, worst case assault. Don't legitimise lynch mobs, please.
- quantified 3y agoElsewhere you state a preference for "least restrictive free speech laws". However, you do seem to suggest that there should be some limits? Hate speech laws are seen by some as an unnecessary intrusion on freedom of speech. Part of the town square is actually being accountable for what you say, which the on-line troll world avoids. How to align free speech with unaccountability?
- Pannoniae 3y agoI think those people are nutjobs (who say threats of violence should be protected speech) Yes, there should be limits, but those should be way less restrictive than most modern social media (ban on anything controversial) Also, I think accountability shouldn't be confused with lynch mobs - calling people to be fired or deplatformed isn't "natural consequences/accountability", it's using harassment to hurt someone else.