5 ms·

Yes, indeed, that's what we need--5 year prison sentences for exercising 1st amendment rights. Preventing the creation of these databases? No, far too difficult

Yes, indeed, that's what we need--5 year prison sentences for exercising 1st amendment rights. Preventing the creation of these databases? No, far too difficult to enforce...instead, let's go after the uppity little guys. You've suggested a remarkably short-sighted solution to a very thorny problem.

grecy 12y ago
You're telling me it's my first amendment right to mail a knife to your home address and suggest you kill yourself?
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  The protection prevents the government from denying you the ability to make the threat. It does nothing to prevent them from pursuing a criminal prosecution after you have made it, or to prevent your victim from litigating a tort claim against you for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  - grecy 12y ago
    I suppose the 2nd amendment prevents the government from denying me the ability to use a gun to shoot someone too... but saying that isn't constructive to the discussion of how to do we stop people shooting each other with guns. Yes, I have the right to threaten someone because it's free speech, but I should still be punished for doing it. (i.e. I have the right to have a gun and use it to shoot someone, but I should still be punished for doing it)
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      Basically, if an action could be considered a check upon government power, the government is not allowed to prevent people from doing it in the name of fighting crime. You are allowed to have the gun that you might use for murder, because you might also use it to rebel against a corrupt government or in self-defense. You are allowed to use common channels of communication to make unlawful threats, because you could also use them to spread ideas unpopular to the ruling class. Only in the case where there is no possible constructive use or government-limiting use would the government be justified in engaging prior restraint. As you might imagine, such a situation is exceedingly rare. A device designed to spread anthrax spores in an aerosol, for instance, has no peaceful purpose, and I would not consider it a legitimate check upon government power, as it would indiscriminately kill civilians as well as government agents. So you could be prosecuted just for having it, because it is presumed that it could not be used for any purpose that is not inherently criminal. If there is any possibility that you might do something with innocent intent, the state has to wait until you do that thing with ill intent before punishing you for it. Now, there are a lot of laws and precedents that defy that principle, on a continuous spectrum from things I consider barely reasonable to things I consider to be completely unjust BS, so don't mistake any of this for real legal advice. What should be and what actually happens are often very different things.
      - grecy 12y ago
        > the state has to wait until you do that thing with ill intent before punishing you for it. OK Great. Originally I said the state should wait until you've stalked/harassed/intimidated someone, then punish you for it. Why are you having a conversation about rights? From what you just said, it has nothing to do with it.
- angersock 12y ago
  Sure is. What type of knife? Can it be a kitchen knife? I need a new chef's knife...mine is a little bent.
Someone1234 12y ago
The first amendment doesn't protect criminal activity.
- byerley 12y ago
  If repeating publicly known personal information is a crime, the printers of telephone directories must have really good lawyers.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    As you well know the topic at hand is people using that data to "stalk/harass/intimidate" as the OP said verbatim. Which is not protected by the 1st amendment.
    - byerley 12y ago
      I read it differently; "this stunt" is ambiguous in context. In any case, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the problem. The danger of "doxxing" is that people get overwhelmed by a flood of negative attention from many different people. In most cases, none of the "harassing" individuals actually do enough individual harassment to make the action illegal. You can't go after the doxxer because releasing the information was completely legal, and you can't go after the mob because none of the individuals have done enough to constitute a crime. You could certainly go after a guy who sends a knife; pretty sure just mailing a knife is illegal in most places.
      - SCHiM 12y ago
        As if a death threat is not 'enough harassment'. What does constitute enough harassment in your opinion? You make it sound as though there's nothing to be done against this. But that is not the case, things change. Perhaps releasing personal information about another relating to doxing should be made illegal. It's not as if it's hard to distinguish between someone who's trying to dox another and legitimate sharing of information.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago

grecy 12y ago

You're telling me it's my first amendment right to mail a knife to your home address and suggest you kill yourself?

logfromblammo 12y ago
The protection prevents the government from denying you the ability to make the threat. It does nothing to prevent them from pursuing a criminal prosecution after you have made it, or to prevent your victim from litigating a tort claim against you for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- grecy 12y ago
  I suppose the 2nd amendment prevents the government from denying me the ability to use a gun to shoot someone too... but saying that isn't constructive to the discussion of how to do we stop people shooting each other with guns. Yes, I have the right to threaten someone because it's free speech, but I should still be punished for doing it. (i.e. I have the right to have a gun and use it to shoot someone, but I should still be punished for doing it)
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Basically, if an action could be considered a check upon government power, the government is not allowed to prevent people from doing it in the name of fighting crime. You are allowed to have the gun that you might use for murder, because you might also use it to rebel against a corrupt government or in self-defense. You are allowed to use common channels of communication to make unlawful threats, because you could also use them to spread ideas unpopular to the ruling class. Only in the case where there is no possible constructive use or government-limiting use would the government be justified in engaging prior restraint. As you might imagine, such a situation is exceedingly rare. A device designed to spread anthrax spores in an aerosol, for instance, has no peaceful purpose, and I would not consider it a legitimate check upon government power, as it would indiscriminately kill civilians as well as government agents. So you could be prosecuted just for having it, because it is presumed that it could not be used for any purpose that is not inherently criminal. If there is any possibility that you might do something with innocent intent, the state has to wait until you do that thing with ill intent before punishing you for it. Now, there are a lot of laws and precedents that defy that principle, on a continuous spectrum from things I consider barely reasonable to things I consider to be completely unjust BS, so don't mistake any of this for real legal advice. What should be and what actually happens are often very different things.
    - grecy 12y ago
      > the state has to wait until you do that thing with ill intent before punishing you for it. OK Great. Originally I said the state should wait until you've stalked/harassed/intimidated someone, then punish you for it. Why are you having a conversation about rights? From what you just said, it has nothing to do with it.
angersock 12y ago
Sure is. What type of knife? Can it be a kitchen knife? I need a new chef's knife...mine is a little bent.

Someone1234 12y ago

The first amendment doesn't protect criminal activity.

byerley 12y ago
If repeating publicly known personal information is a crime, the printers of telephone directories must have really good lawyers.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  As you well know the topic at hand is people using that data to "stalk/harass/intimidate" as the OP said verbatim. Which is not protected by the 1st amendment.
  - byerley 12y ago
    I read it differently; "this stunt" is ambiguous in context. In any case, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the problem. The danger of "doxxing" is that people get overwhelmed by a flood of negative attention from many different people. In most cases, none of the "harassing" individuals actually do enough individual harassment to make the action illegal. You can't go after the doxxer because releasing the information was completely legal, and you can't go after the mob because none of the individuals have done enough to constitute a crime. You could certainly go after a guy who sends a knife; pretty sure just mailing a knife is illegal in most places.
    - SCHiM 12y ago
      As if a death threat is not 'enough harassment'. What does constitute enough harassment in your opinion? You make it sound as though there's nothing to be done against this. But that is not the case, things change. Perhaps releasing personal information about another relating to doxing should be made illegal. It's not as if it's hard to distinguish between someone who's trying to dox another and legitimate sharing of information.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago