> But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech.

That sure is quite an assumption you're making.

Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech. Individuals and most groups should have absolute freedom of association, which is precisely what they're exercising when choosing not to associate with some speech and some speakers

▲

bell-cot 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech...

Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist, but does that include:

- Swatting?

- Doxxing?

- Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater?

- Liable and Slander?

- Spreading nude pictures (real or faked) or personal medical information without consent?

- Threatening (relatively) defenseless individuals with physical harm?

- Impersonation?

- Blackmail?

	▲	JoshTriplett 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist Emphatically not, in the sense it's commonly used, but I think the distinction between "shunned by private individuals/groups/companies" and "prosecuted" is critically important. I'm not going to go through all of these point-by-point, but as a couple of examples: > - Swatting? Inciting an action should be charged on the basis of the action and the probability of having incited it. Charge them with attempted murder. Also, fix the mechanisms that make it feasible for a person to too-easily call down excessive force on someone's home or office. > - Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater? Inciting a predictable panic that gets people injured should get you charged over the injuries. But also, the original version of that phrase was used as part of an abominably bad ruling restricting people speaking out against a military draft, so it's a bad example. See also laws about fraud: the speech isn't the issue, the deception leading to swindling people out of something is. Similarly, credible threats to commit a crime should be charged accordingly, not because of the speech but as prevention of an intended/planned crime. (With a great deal of caution, due to the balance between preventing it and the hazards of charging a crime that hasn't happened yet; Minority Report is not a blueprint.)