4 ms·

> Worse than even what you quoted, many people "roll coal" specifically to blast peds, cyclists, Prius drivers, etc with exhaust fumes. Are you saying they are

by csdvrx 3y ago

> Worse than even what you quoted, many people "roll coal" specifically to blast peds, cyclists, Prius drivers, etc with exhaust fumes. Are you saying they are using smoke signals to express a divergence in political opinions? Then I'd say is some kind of speech, and therefore should be protected. Regulating manufacturing is one thing, but using laws against people using what they have bought to do what they want with it is where I draw the line. Another example is WIFI firmwares: regulate companies as much as you like, but I want to modify my devices as much as I want to operate in the unregulated spectrum.

pengaru 3y ago
> Then I'd say is some kind of speech, and therefore should be protected. Speech causing immediate harm to others is explicitly not protected. If you want to interpret rolling coal as political speech, directing it at pedestrians/cyclists et al is clearly not a protected form of it.
- csdvrx 3y ago
  Unlike screaming fire in a crowded theater, it's not causing immediate harm: maybe it's causing long term harm, but that's not enough to remove the free speech protection.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    > Unlike screaming fire in a crowded theater, it's not causing immediate harm: maybe it's causing long term, but that's not enough to remove the free speech protection. It's ok to be wrong.
seattle_spring 3y ago
You think literally blasting someone in the face with dangerous smoke is "protected speech"? Potentially blinding someone by putting them into a thick cloud of smoke is "protected speech"? I can't tell if your comment is a parody, or if the "free speech absolutists" have really gotten this ridiculous.
- csdvrx 3y ago
  > I can't tell if your comment is a parody, or if the "free speech absolutists" have really gotten this ridiculous. Yes, I believe in free speech. If you believe this is ridiculous, it's on you. > You think literally blasting someone in the face with dangerous smoke ... Potentially blinding someone ... Now you are being ridiculous: the "danger" of this smoke is very relative: yes, particulates can be hazardous to health, but only in the long run. It's not like throwing acid at someone: it can't cause blindness! This smoke may only reduce visibility a little and very temporarily unless it's done in a tunnel. I think it's not a nice thing to do (pollution etc), but I still prefer having laws protecting important concepts like free speech, even if these laws also let people do things I don't like: the concepts these laws protect are more important that the consequences of a few isolated individual actions. Also, intention matters: if the person doing that is aiming at cyclist faces or focusing on tunnels to risk causing accidents, it's very different from sending smoke towards the open sky and away from anyone: one is malicious and illegal, the other is expressing a political opinion and may be protected. It's ok to dislike some political opinions, but it's not ok to try to regulate speech with the power of law.

by csdvrx 3y ago

pengaru 3y ago

> Then I'd say is some kind of speech, and therefore should be protected. Speech causing immediate harm to others is explicitly not protected. If you want to interpret rolling coal as political speech, directing it at pedestrians/cyclists et al is clearly not a protected form of it.

csdvrx 3y ago
Unlike screaming fire in a crowded theater, it's not causing immediate harm: maybe it's causing long term harm, but that's not enough to remove the free speech protection.
- pengaru 3y ago
  > Unlike screaming fire in a crowded theater, it's not causing immediate harm: maybe it's causing long term, but that's not enough to remove the free speech protection. It's ok to be wrong.

seattle_spring 3y ago

You think literally blasting someone in the face with dangerous smoke is "protected speech"? Potentially blinding someone by putting them into a thick cloud of smoke is "protected speech"? I can't tell if your comment is a parody, or if the "free speech absolutists" have really gotten this ridiculous.

csdvrx 3y ago
> I can't tell if your comment is a parody, or if the "free speech absolutists" have really gotten this ridiculous. Yes, I believe in free speech. If you believe this is ridiculous, it's on you. > You think literally blasting someone in the face with dangerous smoke ... Potentially blinding someone ... Now you are being ridiculous: the "danger" of this smoke is very relative: yes, particulates can be hazardous to health, but only in the long run. It's not like throwing acid at someone: it can't cause blindness! This smoke may only reduce visibility a little and very temporarily unless it's done in a tunnel. I think it's not a nice thing to do (pollution etc), but I still prefer having laws protecting important concepts like free speech, even if these laws also let people do things I don't like: the concepts these laws protect are more important that the consequences of a few isolated individual actions. Also, intention matters: if the person doing that is aiming at cyclist faces or focusing on tunnels to risk causing accidents, it's very different from sending smoke towards the open sky and away from anyone: one is malicious and illegal, the other is expressing a political opinion and may be protected. It's ok to dislike some political opinions, but it's not ok to try to regulate speech with the power of law.