3 ms·

That falls under libel laws, which is a civil tort. There isn't an administrative or ministerial apparatus fining you based on the presumption that you violated

That falls under libel laws, which is a civil tort. There isn't an administrative or ministerial apparatus fining you based on the presumption that you violated a speech code.

jrflowers 1y ago
Exactly. Free speech is why there are no repercussions for posting people’s credit card numbers
Balinares 1y ago
So it's absolute until it's something you don't like. Gotcha.
- mothballed 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    Free speech doesn't include the freedom to use speech to do illegal harms (that are themselves, not speech). In other words, "Speech + Offense" is prosecutable, for illegal "Offense". You don't get a hall pass to use speech to commit a crime, and not be culpable for the crime. Fraud, libel, harassment, giving false testimony in court, colluding with competitors to artificially increase prices, broadcasting a copyright work, signing your name (just your name!) to an illegal contract, etc. all may involve speech, but the offense is defined by the non-speech functional impact. Convincing someone to kill someone for you is not legal, because murder is not legal. People generally have to prove that the speech was intentionally or recklessly geared to cause harm to others. Although many cases may be clear, there isn't a mathematical separation between the two, so we have courts and precedence, and further reviews, as the practical means of drawing the line. And that is true for the vast majority of laws and rights.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      I don't think that's the case in the US. For instance, if you take a picture of a patient you are treating, go home and send that picture to your wife and say "treated this lady for syphilis today" you are violating HIPAA despite the fact you're telling 100% truth, conveying it privately with no expectation or desire it will ever impact the victim, and literally are only conveying it as information to be consumed and not acted on then it is still illegal.
      - Nevermark 1y ago
        That is breaking a law that protects patients' privacy. Nobody should distribute private information given to them under an agreement to maintain privacy. Nobody is forced to abide by HIPPA, without their consent. Nobody is forced to sign a HIPAA agreement. In fact, nobody is forced to work in the medical professions, or look at private medical data, in the US. And no law prohibits asking a patient or caregivers if they are ok with some harmless informal sharing, and explaining the urge to them... This is similar to the voluntary civil jeopardy of signing an NDA before being informed of trade secrets. Penalties may vary.
        mothballed 1y ago
        This is a recklessly misinformed understanding of HIPAA. It applies even if you've never signed a "HIPAA agreement."
        Nevermark 1y ago
        My understanding: HIPAA prohibits share private medical information that isn't yours. Regardless of signing anything or how you got it. And no medical establishment can (legally) share records with you, without a legal purpose, and documentation you know your obligations or are legally allowed to have the information. Nobody cares what your opinion is, without an explanation. This is HN. Two-way curiosity and friendly discussion are encouraged. Enlighten me, instead of posing, please.
- ok123456 1y ago
  You have to prove that an actual crime or harm was involved. There is some nuance there, but there absolutely is not a censorious bureaucrat issuing warning letters and fines for things they don't like.
  - retsibsi 1y ago
    The point is that you're now defending a completely different position from "Free speech is absolute." Determining what should count as "an actual crime or harm", how it can be proven, and so on, is pretty much the entirety of the problem you were claiming to have solved.
andrepd 1y ago
So it's not absolute?

That falls under libel laws, which is a civil tort. There isn't an administrative or ministerial apparatus fining you based on the presumption that you violated a speech code.

jrflowers 1y ago

Exactly. Free speech is why there are no repercussions for posting people’s credit card numbers

Balinares 1y ago

So it's absolute until it's something you don't like. Gotcha.

mothballed 1y ago
[flagged]
- Nevermark 1y ago
  Free speech doesn't include the freedom to use speech to do illegal harms (that are themselves, not speech). In other words, "Speech + Offense" is prosecutable, for illegal "Offense". You don't get a hall pass to use speech to commit a crime, and not be culpable for the crime. Fraud, libel, harassment, giving false testimony in court, colluding with competitors to artificially increase prices, broadcasting a copyright work, signing your name (just your name!) to an illegal contract, etc. all may involve speech, but the offense is defined by the non-speech functional impact. Convincing someone to kill someone for you is not legal, because murder is not legal. People generally have to prove that the speech was intentionally or recklessly geared to cause harm to others. Although many cases may be clear, there isn't a mathematical separation between the two, so we have courts and precedence, and further reviews, as the practical means of drawing the line. And that is true for the vast majority of laws and rights.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    I don't think that's the case in the US. For instance, if you take a picture of a patient you are treating, go home and send that picture to your wife and say "treated this lady for syphilis today" you are violating HIPAA despite the fact you're telling 100% truth, conveying it privately with no expectation or desire it will ever impact the victim, and literally are only conveying it as information to be consumed and not acted on then it is still illegal.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      That is breaking a law that protects patients' privacy. Nobody should distribute private information given to them under an agreement to maintain privacy. Nobody is forced to abide by HIPPA, without their consent. Nobody is forced to sign a HIPAA agreement. In fact, nobody is forced to work in the medical professions, or look at private medical data, in the US. And no law prohibits asking a patient or caregivers if they are ok with some harmless informal sharing, and explaining the urge to them... This is similar to the voluntary civil jeopardy of signing an NDA before being informed of trade secrets. Penalties may vary.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        This is a recklessly misinformed understanding of HIPAA. It applies even if you've never signed a "HIPAA agreement."
        Nevermark 1y ago
        My understanding: HIPAA prohibits share private medical information that isn't yours. Regardless of signing anything or how you got it. And no medical establishment can (legally) share records with you, without a legal purpose, and documentation you know your obligations or are legally allowed to have the information. Nobody cares what your opinion is, without an explanation. This is HN. Two-way curiosity and friendly discussion are encouraged. Enlighten me, instead of posing, please.
ok123456 1y ago
You have to prove that an actual crime or harm was involved. There is some nuance there, but there absolutely is not a censorious bureaucrat issuing warning letters and fines for things they don't like.
- retsibsi 1y ago
  The point is that you're now defending a completely different position from "Free speech is absolute." Determining what should count as "an actual crime or harm", how it can be proven, and so on, is pretty much the entirety of the problem you were claiming to have solved.

andrepd 1y ago

So it's not absolute?