3 ms·

My counter-argument is this: you could make a more extreme version of the statement like: "the government can't arrest you for what you say, but the people are

My counter-argument is this: you could make a more extreme version of the statement like: "the government can't arrest you for what you say, but the people are free to reach for their pitchforks and lynch you". Which isn't true, the government must also protect you from arbitrary violence. The fact that violence perpetrated via social media (harassment, stalking, mobbing) cannot realistically be prosecuted, doesn't invalidate the principle that people should be protected from it.

devb 3y ago
> Which isn't true, the government must also protect you from arbitrary violence. "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm" https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
- al_borland 3y ago
  It may not be a constitutional duty, as outlined in the case, but it’s still their job. If they aren’t enforcing the law and court orders, what are they doing? I do my job because it’s my job, not because of a constitutional obligation.
- pmdulaney 3y ago
  How could the Court have ruled otherwise? It would just defy common sense to say that the police are responsible to prevent physical harm coming to any person in their jurisdiction. Unless you were to have a police officer stationed at each resident's house, there would be no reasonable way to hold the police responsible. A separate but related issue: If I see a toddler walking on the railroad tracks and I see a train coming -- but with plenty of time to intervene without placing myself at significant risk -- am I obligated to save the toddler. I think inaction is such a situation is not against the law, at least for an ordinary citizen, but anyone who hears the particulars of the incident will hold me in deep contempt.

devb 3y ago

> Which isn't true, the government must also protect you from arbitrary violence. "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm" https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...

al_borland 3y ago
It may not be a constitutional duty, as outlined in the case, but it’s still their job. If they aren’t enforcing the law and court orders, what are they doing? I do my job because it’s my job, not because of a constitutional obligation.
pmdulaney 3y ago
How could the Court have ruled otherwise? It would just defy common sense to say that the police are responsible to prevent physical harm coming to any person in their jurisdiction. Unless you were to have a police officer stationed at each resident's house, there would be no reasonable way to hold the police responsible. A separate but related issue: If I see a toddler walking on the railroad tracks and I see a train coming -- but with plenty of time to intervene without placing myself at significant risk -- am I obligated to save the toddler. I think inaction is such a situation is not against the law, at least for an ordinary citizen, but anyone who hears the particulars of the incident will hold me in deep contempt.