4 ms·
I just think it's crazy that words can be illegal. Especially billions-of-dollars illegal. Regardless of what it's about
by bun_terminator 2y ago
I just think it's crazy that words can be illegal. Especially billions-of-dollars illegal. Regardless of what it's about
- lores 2y agoCausing harm is illegal. Words are not magic.
- bun_terminator 2y agoThe problem is that this is easily abused, and couldn't be more subjective
- lores 2y agoThere is no slippery slope here. Harm was actual, demonstrated, and a direct result of the speech. No subjectivity in this case, and in fact a cast-iron proof that absolute free speech would lead to very nasty outcomes.
- bun_terminator 2y agoIt can never be demonstrated that speech could do harm, that's the point. It's entirely up to the receiving end
- lores 2y agoI'm not sure I understand your argument. It can't be proven either that someone didn't die of a heart attack right before the bullet hit them, but we draw a line at "really, really likely".
- bun_terminator 2y agoNot sure I can follow either. Bullets obviously cause injuries. Words almost never do. And if so, that's mostly up to the recipient and trivial to prevent.
- lores 2y agoIs a crime boss saying "kill him" to his henchmen not responsible too for the killing? Unless you disagree with that, we're only to argue where the line is, not that there is a line.
- bun_terminator 2y agoYes of course - but the words are to blame in the same way a trigger is to blame.
- hagbard_c 2y agoTrue, there are plenty of examples of 'harm' caused by calling people racists/nazis/granny-killers (during the SARS2-unpleasantness)/*-phobes/etcetera which have caused people their jobs and their social circles. Is it illegal to label people with such epithets in the knowledge that it often leads to such outcomes? If not, why not?