Language has also been used to coordinate mob violence. So have arms and legs. Public roads have helped in the coordination of violence and human trafficking, and it's time to take roads seriously.

Violence is illegal, not the potential pathways.

I think what you are saying is true for the US, but if you travel, don't make the mistake of thinking our laws follow you everywhere. Whenever I am in different nations, especially the nations I know have strict laws, such as Cuba, I always leave the idea of the Constitution at the customs desk. You're under their laws. What is legal or illegal, is whatever they say is legal or illegal.

So don't travel the world thinking that what you just stated is true. Potential pathways to violence may, indeed, be illegal in the nation to which you are traveling. And punishments can be harsh. They can, will, and have sentenced people to death for being caught with drugs for instance. No murder. No guns. No violence. No nothing. Just caught with drugs -> death.

I always strongly urge people, especially young people, to be aware of the legal environment in any nation to which they are traveling.

> So don't travel the world thinking that what you just stated is true. Potential pathways to violence may, indeed, be illegal in the nation to which you are traveling. And punishments can be harsh. They can, will, and have sentenced people to death for being caught with drugs for instance. No murder. No guns. No violence. No nothing. Just caught with drugs -> death.

>I always strongly urge people, especially young people, to be aware of the legal environment in any nation to which they are traveling.

Absolutely. Being caught in the Dubai airport while connecting with drugs. You'll be faced with the consequences of the drug laws of the UAE without being techincally in the country. (Also you can be detained there for violating the laws of the UAE while connecting as well)

Also in Thailand, never step on the currency because it's a disrespect to the king (who is on their money).

Other countries act very differently. It's amazing when people go elsewhere and think "well it's legal back at home" (also the opposite is dumbfounding.. South Korea tries to punish people who smoke weed in canada if the people come back after smoking)

Is it your belief that there has never been any good public policy other than laws criminalizing violence that have ever had any positive effects on how much violence occurs?

I think that there are all sorts of measures you could take to minimize or maximize a single variable. If you want to minimize violence, you could install cameras in every room. Unverifiable rape claims would virtually disappear. Unresolved murders, too. GPS trackers on everyone? Same thing, and we already basically do that one.

If your imagination can't provide you with dangerous scenarios arising from the state controlling what is true, history and fiction would be glad to assist you.

Ah yes, bad, awful, terrible policies to reduce violence abound.

But do you believe there have never been any good public policies balancing public safety against other rights, that you agree with? For example, there are legal restrictions on how much people who work on our nuclear weapons can say about them. This is clearly a restriction of their fundamental human right to freedom of speech. Is it worth it?

Has that actually happened in Singapore though? I usually read about those kinds of incidents in rural communities which are recently and rapidly becoming internet connected. Not in densely populated and highly educated city-states which have been highly connected for decades.

Also this makes it sound like Singapore is less worried about mobs and more about cultural values

> K. Shanmugam, the law minister, warned lawmakers of the dangers of unregulated speech, handing them a list of “offensive song lyrics”, which included hits by Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande.

Densely populated cities filled with mostly educated people are perfectly capable of riots driven by ethnic tensions and dubious claims, but Singapore's last race riot was in 1969[1]. Singapore had legitimate concerns about racial tensions in the 1970s and some of its more illiberal policies were arguably practical responses to those situations, but that was a long time ago when Singaporean society was very different, and this draft policy's clauses about making it illegal to publish material that "might diminish public confidence in a state body" seems to have other priorities.

[1]There was another riot involving Indian construction workers in 2013, but that was a spontaneous [massive over]reaction to a bus driver running someone over, not something planned or stirred up beforehand. And that's every riot in Singapore since 1969...

> Has that actually happened in Singapore though?

Singapore is more worried about publications which undermine confidence in the government.

A few months ago, a website was blocked for alleging that the government ministers were threatening war against Malaysia over a border dispute: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-herald-webs...

Critics of the current bill fear that the executive (which, like in other Commonwealth nations, is formed out of the dominant party in the legislature) would use their new powers on any media which refuses to follow the government's narrative.

I suppose that mentioning Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande is just a ploy to enlist trad-con support for the bill. The real reason is that government power very much depends on controlling the official narrative while making sure that alternative ones do not gain much traction. This was so much easier to do when information was primarily distributed through centralized media, such as newspapers, radio, and television. Governments simply had much more power back then. The internet has eroded it. So, either they give up some of that excess power, or else they somehow manage to centralize the internet. The societal control that we inherited from the past is no longer compatible with decentralized distribution of information on the internet. The very fact that we are interactively discussing this topic today, instead of merely swallowing what is supposedly best for us, demonstrates the point actually quite nicely.