3 ms·

She, you, myself, we don't have a freedom to talk without being subjected to death threats. It's terrible, awful, and a reflection of the unfathomable depths o

She, you, myself, we don't have a freedom to talk without being subjected to death threats. It's terrible, awful, and a reflection of the unfathomable depths of depravity existent within humanity that she was subjected to such horrible treatment, but as long as she's allowed to say what she wants, these folks are allowed to say what they want. I know for absolute certain that this is a truly repugnant idea, letting people like those who've harassed that poor woman continue, but to stop them would be declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of "appropriate" speech, something which invariably leads to abuse. I'm not comfortable letting my government tell me what's okay to say, and I don't think the threat of being threatened with death is enough to get me to change my mind.

foolrush 12y ago
“She, you, myself, we don't have a freedom to talk without being subjected to death threats.” Except not quite. Serious question: When was the last time you received a rape or death threat for something you posted? Now accept that if you are a woman, the chances are that you have. There is a narrative of equality in your statement which is betrayed by the statistical reality.
- diminoten 12y ago
  Like I said, threats really suck. They do, I wouldn't ever deny that. The cost of eliminating them just isn't a cost I'm willing to pay, however. Maybe that's because I don't pay a high cost for that position, but that's probably true for most of the things I or anyone else believe.
userbinator 12y ago
That reminds me of this quote, which I agree with: "I don't agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  It's a great quote. Voltaire definitely was not talking about threats to rape someone to death, though.
argonaut 12y ago
At least in the US, credible death threats made with an intent to intimidate are not protected free speech (as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past).
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Which is why no new legislation is needed- it's already against the law. There's no need to give authorities more power when they already have all the power that's necessary.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    (Article is from the UK, not the US, and it's about extending the penalty)
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      The UK authorities also have all the power that's needed as well. No new power is necessary.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > Which is why no new legislation is needed- it's already against the law. New laws guide behaviour. People don't wear seatbelts until you make it illegal to not do so. New laws make sure there are no gaps in the existing laws - laws applicable to public order or telecommunications may leave exploitable gaps.
  - tim333 12y ago
    Oddly enough reading the article there is no new anti-troll law. They are just changing the max penalty on a ten year old law. There does seem to be a new anti revenge porn clause being put in though.
- diminoten 12y ago
  Yeah, I think this is a good standard. I agree that the proverbial, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" shouldn't be protected. I just think we should be super stingy about what falls into the "unprotected" category.
vacri 12y ago
but to stop them would be declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of "appropriate" speech, something which invariably leads to abuse. Or... the world could be in shades of grey. Edit: actually, to address the issue at it's fundamental level, yes, she should have a right to talk without being subject to death threats. If she is intimidated to the point of not talking, then she has had her right to freedom of speech taken away by another. What you're saying is that people are free to intimidate others into silence, which is internally inconsistent as an argument for free speech.
pjc50 12y ago
Not government but common law; the existing law regarding offensive language in public is "breach of the peace", is very old, and administered by magistrates.
tim333 12y ago
>declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of "appropriate" speech It would end up being more of a court decision as to what the limits are and not absolutely a new thing. Some existing forms of speech such as blackmail, incitement to murder or genocide, offers to sell heroin and the like have been able to get you into legal difficulties for a while in most counties. It's a question of where you draw the line.
DanBC 12y ago
> It's terrible, awful, and a reflection of the unfathomable depths of depravity existent within humanity that she was subjected to such horrible treatment, but as long as she's allowed to say what she wants, these folks are allowed to say what they want. She's not allowed to say what she wants. She's not allowed to make death threats or to tell people that she's going to rape them. English people on the whole think it's just weird that people would defend that as a freedom people should have. > I'm not comfortable letting my government It's (just about) a democratically elected government, and they're reflecting the English mood.

foolrush 12y ago

“She, you, myself, we don't have a freedom to talk without being subjected to death threats.” Except not quite. Serious question: When was the last time you received a rape or death threat for something you posted? Now accept that if you are a woman, the chances are that you have. There is a narrative of equality in your statement which is betrayed by the statistical reality.

diminoten 12y ago
Like I said, threats really suck. They do, I wouldn't ever deny that. The cost of eliminating them just isn't a cost I'm willing to pay, however. Maybe that's because I don't pay a high cost for that position, but that's probably true for most of the things I or anyone else believe.

userbinator 12y ago

That reminds me of this quote, which I agree with: "I don't agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
It's a great quote. Voltaire definitely was not talking about threats to rape someone to death, though.

argonaut 12y ago

At least in the US, credible death threats made with an intent to intimidate are not protected free speech (as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past).

waterlesscloud 12y ago
Which is why no new legislation is needed- it's already against the law. There's no need to give authorities more power when they already have all the power that's necessary.
- diminoten 12y ago
  (Article is from the UK, not the US, and it's about extending the penalty)
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    The UK authorities also have all the power that's needed as well. No new power is necessary.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > Which is why no new legislation is needed- it's already against the law. New laws guide behaviour. People don't wear seatbelts until you make it illegal to not do so. New laws make sure there are no gaps in the existing laws - laws applicable to public order or telecommunications may leave exploitable gaps.
- tim333 12y ago
  Oddly enough reading the article there is no new anti-troll law. They are just changing the max penalty on a ten year old law. There does seem to be a new anti revenge porn clause being put in though.
diminoten 12y ago
Yeah, I think this is a good standard. I agree that the proverbial, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" shouldn't be protected. I just think we should be super stingy about what falls into the "unprotected" category.

vacri 12y ago

but to stop them would be declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of "appropriate" speech, something which invariably leads to abuse. Or... the world could be in shades of grey. Edit: actually, to address the issue at it's fundamental level, yes, she should have a right to talk without being subject to death threats. If she is intimidated to the point of not talking, then she has had her right to freedom of speech taken away by another. What you're saying is that people are free to intimidate others into silence, which is internally inconsistent as an argument for free speech.

pjc50 12y ago

Not government but common law; the existing law regarding offensive language in public is "breach of the peace", is very old, and administered by magistrates.

tim333 12y ago

>declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of "appropriate" speech It would end up being more of a court decision as to what the limits are and not absolutely a new thing. Some existing forms of speech such as blackmail, incitement to murder or genocide, offers to sell heroin and the like have been able to get you into legal difficulties for a while in most counties. It's a question of where you draw the line.

DanBC 12y ago

> It's terrible, awful, and a reflection of the unfathomable depths of depravity existent within humanity that she was subjected to such horrible treatment, but as long as she's allowed to say what she wants, these folks are allowed to say what they want. She's not allowed to say what she wants. She's not allowed to make death threats or to tell people that she's going to rape them. English people on the whole think it's just weird that people would defend that as a freedom people should have. > I'm not comfortable letting my government It's (just about) a democratically elected government, and they're reflecting the English mood.