Making accusations against someone and trying to get them deplatformed is not the same as threatening someone with violence. I know very few details but the moral equivalence you’re drawing in this comment is false.
Of course actual violence is a different case altogether.
In addition, the prior comments talk about things that may causally limit freedom of speech. Losing your job does not mean losing your voice.
When it comes to how FoS is constitutionally defined (across several countries), it is worth learning about "fighting words." Nearly every justice system agrees that any goes, except words that may (not merely will) cause imminent harm. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
So the correct response to percieved harrassment is indeed taking legal action, and not, say, mobilizing mobs to retaliate back ? Mmm, I wonder who needs to hear that.
You're obviously correct here, and I'm still trying to figure out how the above poster didn't realize what they were saying as they were saying it.
I have no clue who these people are or what the situation is, but I’ve seen more than enough angry mobs appear out of nowhere after an accusation of a crime.
What are some specific examples of this phenomenon you’re referring to?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Humans are inherently tribal. If enough of us get together in a group, we are capable of terrible things - and the justification of them.
This seems like a fundamentally different scenario than the OP I was responding to, glad I asked for specifics ;)
Am I wrong here?
“There seems to be a double standard with who can partake in intimidation campaigns.”
And btw, kiwifarms had to get their own ip block because no one would host them any more that was like 5+ years ago or something. So cloudflare never really provided any service to the site as their IPs were public knowledge and could be ddos'd (hence why it is always going down)
Are there not death threats posted on Twitter and Facebook all the time?