Oddbean new post about login | logout I actually believe in a high bar for regulating speech. But there are words and symbols that invoke violence and are hate-fueled and have a real impact on those on the receiving end. Adjudicating this is always very context specific. Deliberate lies and misinformation for political or monetary gain, bearing in mind the public good, should not be beyond question and sanction.
what do you think of current laws : speech "violations" can only be tried in civil court. Like defamation and misrepresentation. Almost never (except very rare occasions) in criminal court. Also in the US, the supreme court has ruled that there is no such rhing as hate speech. What do you think about that ruling ?
i'd tend to agree with the first point. again though, this depends on context. i'm not familiar with US law but i think hate speech is a case of you know it when you see it.
I disagree, there is no such thing as hate speech, there is only hurt feeling. For hate speech, it is difficult to prove mens rea (criminal intent) when people have varying levels of sensitivity to words. "i'll know it when I see it" is a poor excuse for a standard to out someone in jail. you're going to ruin someone's life when the line not to cross isn't clear? The line that was struck in the US is child P because someone was hurt in the creation of the expressed material. other than that, freedom of speech is absolute in criminal cases. that is the way to go. I will however sau that with geberative AI, the moral standard of that line, while i believe the line should stay, is getting shaky