> By your standards, swatting is a perfectly acceptable outcome as long as the victim had the opportunity to mute their harrassers.

Folks don't get swatted via tweet, meem, or fb post. They have to pick p the phone and commit a real crime.

> Likewise, poisoning someone's reputation and making them unemployable is fine too. It's just words, right?

We have had laws against this long before the internet. Maybe they need strengthened.

Edit:

We are clearly talking about two different cases. We have things that are already illegal, and should continue to be illegal. Your examples are both something covered by existing laws.

On the other hand, we have folks who want to ban things that are legal, simply because they are offended. I can name a few, but in this clement, it would not be wise.

Oh, look at that. Self moderation.

As somebody with less to lose, I guess it's my duty to take the fall for you. Examples are the idea that women are underrepresented in prestigious jobs because they're biologically determined to not want to do them or not be as capable of doing them. Another is that blacks are poor because they're genetically inferior at doing things that make money (ie. professional work).

Swatting is only a problem because the police are incompetent. They absolutely should never shoot somebody with the only information of their being dangerous an anonymous tip. It should obviously still be a crime but one against the police, not the target.

As for becoming unemployable. If there was truly free speech, nearly everyone would get it and it would be obviously unreliable so employers would disregard that signal. Even if that didn't work, stricter labor laws might prohibit hiring discrimination based on internet rumors, same as we do for race/sex/etc. discrimination.