Re:Mastodon 2.0
by ch4s3 on Saturday October 21, 2017 @10:56AM
(#15522025)
>Right, now write an algorithm that takes 140 characters of input and correctly identifies whether or not the intent of the author is to legitimately commit an act of violence
You don't have to for 2 reasons. 1. The law states that intent is irrelevant and 2. people already report these threats.
>Removing the requirement for intent is literally banning certain types of speech for the sole purpose of allowing for algorithmic/lazy enforcement
Not it isn't. The threat absent intent is still illegal. It is illegal precisely because it hard for humans to judge intent. And, often you can't establish intent until after someone has acted upon a threat, which does you no good. Death Threats have been illegal in the US and preceding common law systems for basically forever. It has never been protected speech in the US.
To reiterated, death threats are not protected speech and this isn't a free speech issue.
You don't have to for 2 reasons. 1. The law states that intent is irrelevant and 2. people already report these threats.
>Removing the requirement for intent is literally banning certain types of speech for the sole purpose of allowing for algorithmic/lazy enforcement
Not it isn't. The threat absent intent is still illegal. It is illegal precisely because it hard for humans to judge intent. And, often you can't establish intent until after someone has acted upon a threat, which does you no good. Death Threats have been illegal in the US and preceding common law systems for basically forever. It has never been protected speech in the US.
To reiterated, death threats are not protected speech and this isn't a free speech issue.