Hacker News Reader

Comment by smtddr | Hacker News Reader

> Protecting the free speech rights of people who are saying unpopular (but not illegal nor ToS violating) things shouldn't be a barrier to protecting people from harm.

I don't agree with this. Mainly because "protecting people from harm" is not well defined. There are people who seem scared of their own shadow and see nearly everything as potential harm.

EDIT: Not to diminish/trivialize the seriousness of this particular situation, but I still cannot agree with the sentence I quoted as being generally acceptable. As in, I don't want to see a law with that exact sentence in it.

View on HN

This seems kind of facile.

Women are being threatened with violence, rape and death. Even if these are not threats people intend to carry out, to those receiving them they are deeply distressing. The threats are meant to intimidate and silence. Why should anyone put up with that?

I agree. It always sounds a bit phony when people bring up the "freedom of speech" defense, as in "if we relinquish our right to use slurs, we won't be able to topple authoritarian tyrannical governments".

The general idea is not worthless, but it's disconnected from reality.

It is not about toppling authoritarian governments. The right to speak freely is important for any democratic system to function. People have to be able to voice their complaints and criticisms.

The problem is that any system that could be used to prevent people from making rape threats on the Internet could and inevitably would be used to silence various forms of dissent. We have seen this sort of thing before:

http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/mark-fiore-can-win-a-pulitz...

Your example has nothing to do with the law, and dissent wasn't being silenced. It was entirely down to Apple, which has made a commercial decision not to distribute certain types of material. This doesn't prevent the same material being distributed by other means.

Yes, Apple is the same as Walmart in laying the dead hand of censorship on popular culture with the aim of increasing its own profits, but in most cases, there is not a legal compulsion to do so.

You just supported why twitter will die and people will use other microblogging tools and those who remain like propaganda machine.

Nope.

Otherwise, you've invented a hypothetical problem leading to a hypothetical event.

>Why should anyone put up with that?

They shouldn't. Some comments are obviously unacceptable. That's easy. The problem is, as always, where do you draw the line?

It's the comments at the margins of "acceptability" that are the most difficult to deal with and where the arguments of censorship are sure to come from. "You know it when you see it" is not easy to apply.

> The problem is, as always, where do you draw the line?

Threats of unlawful violence. This isn't hard.

> It's the comments at the margins

The US legal system is pretty explicitly biased towards defendants in gray areas, and most marginal cases will never be prosecuted or be thrown out by the judge.

Those that make it through to trial will have a jury determine whether a comment is a threat beyond reasonable doubt, and then the trial judge and at least two appellate judges will have to agree that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable.

Depending on the precise posture of the case, there are tens of judges and an army of clerks beyond that who may see the case cross their desks and provide at least cursory review.

And US courts pay very, very close attention to criminal cases based on speech.

>The US legal system is pretty explicitly biased towards defendants in gray areas

I'm sure Twitter, its users and the legal system are just dying to have marginal cases decided by the courts.

What you've described is the problem I was referring to. One person says one thing, another says something else. A third party has to make the decision on whether it's acceptable or not. That's cumbersome, not very clear cut, and leads to one disgruntled party or at least some controversy.

No third party has to make a decision for Twitter to decide something is unacceptable on its platform, and I would hope Twitter would be much stricter with people who make threats than courts.

> Threats of unlawful violence. This isn't hard.

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

£385 and £600 costs.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial)

Good. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6152125

I hope you come with a big van when you take in all the "i hope you die" commentators on YouTube. Policing the internet of all distressing talk is just a ridiculous idea.

"I hope you die" is not a threat. You are equating utterly different things.

Well, you might think so. But in Britain you might need to go all the way to the High Court to establish the notion that things are not always meant the way they are written: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344

I actually have very little problem with that case. I think the tweet read plainly as a threat and an incredibly stupid thing to say.

I would have been happier if it had been handled with an investigation and warning and not make it to prosecution, but as far as I'm concerned, the guy deserved some nontrivial inconvenience. I'm kind of ambivalent about the fact that the conviction was quashed.

He wasn't even sent to prison. He was fined. I don't think that's a wholly unreasonable way for society to say "don't do that".

strangely I wasn't suggesting all of the internet should be patrolled, why would you conflate my statement with that?

I think content platforms like twitter do have a responsibility to make their spaces reasonably safe for their users. This means not allowing one user to make threats against another.

There's a difference between hoping bad something might happen to someone, and threatening to rape them, come round to their house and stab them or telling them you've planted a bomb on their car. Would you argue otherwise?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com