Hacker News Reader

> Someone talking about a political opinion making me feel "unsafe" is a stretch... the speech you are arguing in defense of is not an exchange of ideas, it's threatening and bordering on sexual violence.

People don't follow people through streets decrying "oh baby do you know about the 1st amendment". This isn't a big problem.

Anyone making this about political speech is not arguing the actual issue of harrasment. Derailing the conversation to discuss some imagined "what if" scenario that isn't real.

If these laws were used to stop legitimate protest then that would be a problem but that isn't even close to happening in France where people protest as a national past time.

> It's all fine and dandy to say "If I don't support someone's speech, I'll just ignore it!" until a person twice your size is following you down a dark street at night talking about the sexual things they want to do to your body.

So a person twice your size following you down a dark street at night not saying anything is OK?!

No that's not ok either. That was not said or implied in the post you are quoting.

The issue is when you say “almost” unrestricted free speech. Someone’s going to have to make the call what the line is. In the US, that’s already been decided thankfully (imminent harm, not “harrasment”). France, I think, will end up walking this back depending on the political repercussions.

It’s enjoyable to get other perspectives, but at the end of they day, I support candidates and judicial nominees who maintain rights as freedoms as unrestricted as possible (speech, firearms ownership, etc). Because you never know who is going to be in power next, and how they will weaponize the exceptions to fundamental rights.

There is a cost to a free and democratic society.