You're right, speech should not be limited... in fact I am telling everybody about the time you beat your wife and abused your kids. And I'm putting $100,000 in to advertising this all over the place and ensuring every forum is littered with this fact along with your name and address...

Hopefully you see simple solutions come with their own complex problems.

▲

ok123456 a day ago | parent | next [-]

That falls under libel laws, which is a civil tort. There isn't an administrative or ministerial apparatus fining you based on the presumption that you violated a speech code.

▲

Balinares a day ago | parent | next [-]

So it's absolute until it's something you don't like. Gotcha.

▲

ok123456 a day ago | parent | next [-]

You have to prove that an actual crime or harm was involved. There is some nuance there, but there absolutely is not a censorious bureaucrat issuing warning letters and fines for things they don't like.

	▲	retsibsi 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The point is that you're now defending a completely different position from "Free speech is absolute." Determining what should count as "an actual crime or harm", how it can be proven, and so on, is pretty much the entirety of the problem you were claiming to have solved.

▲

mothballed a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There have been some American thinkers like Murray Rothbard that argue for absolute free speech including threats and libel. It's true though that most Americans are absolutely full of shit as soon as you dig in the slightest on their views on free speech.

▲

Nevermark a day ago | parent [-]

Free speech doesn't include the freedom to use speech to do illegal harms (that are themselves, not speech).

In other words, "Speech + Offense" is prosecutable, for illegal "Offense".

You don't get a hall pass to use speech to commit a crime, and not be culpable for the crime.

Fraud, libel, harassment, giving false testimony in court, colluding with competitors to artificially increase prices, broadcasting a copyright work, signing your name (just your name!) to an illegal contract, etc. all may involve speech, but the offense is defined by the non-speech functional impact.

Convincing someone to kill someone for you is not legal, because murder is not legal.

People generally have to prove that the speech was intentionally or recklessly geared to cause harm to others.

Although many cases may be clear, there isn't a mathematical separation between the two, so we have courts and precedence, and further reviews, as the practical means of drawing the line.

And that is true for the vast majority of laws and rights.

▲

mothballed a day ago | parent [-]

I don't think that's the case in the US. For instance, if you take a picture of a patient you are treating, go home and send that picture to your wife and say "treated this lady for syphilis today" you are violating HIPAA despite the fact you're telling 100% truth, conveying it privately with no expectation or desire it will ever impact the victim, and literally are only conveying it as information to be consumed and not acted on then it is still illegal.

▲

Nevermark a day ago | parent [-]

That is breaking a law that protects patients' privacy. Nobody should distribute private information given to them under an agreement to maintain privacy.

Nobody is forced to abide by HIPPA, without their consent. Nobody is forced to sign a HIPAA agreement.

In fact, nobody is forced to work in the medical professions, or look at private medical data, in the US. And no law prohibits asking a patient or caregivers if they are ok with some harmless informal sharing, and explaining the urge to them...

This is similar to the voluntary civil jeopardy of signing an NDA before being informed of trade secrets. Penalties may vary.

	▲	mothballed 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is a recklessly misinformed understanding of HIPAA. It applies even if you've never signed a "HIPAA agreement."

▲

jrflowers a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. Free speech is why there are no repercussions for posting people’s credit card numbers

▲

andrepd a day ago | parent | prev [-]

So it's not absolute?

▲

Flere-Imsaho a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't this what Defamation laws protect against?

"Free speech" doesn't mean it can't be challenged.

/not a lawyer

▲

jenscow a day ago | parent [-]

But if "free speech is absolute" then it can't be overridden by any other law.

	▲	hunterpayne a day ago \| parent [-]
		Any absolutist position on any topic is almost certainly wrong. This includes absolutist free speech. The bar in the US is if the speech has some benefit to wider society to allow. And we are very lenient on what we call benefit in these cases. Anyone that tells you the US has absolutely free speech is either lying or just wrong. And in the real world, you can't run society with any absolutist policies including absolutist free speech policies. That being said, the UK government can pound sand and should be embarrassed by its behavior. UK isn't a serious country anymore. If you want to know why Americans don't really care what others think, this is a really good example as to why. Total clown show...