Almost literally every person is "in favour of limits on speech" to some extent, so this kind of reductionism contributes nothing (and I'd argue generally makes the signal-to-noise ratio even worse).

There are huge numbers of interesting questions around how we treat freedom of speech in a civilised society. What restrictions can we collectively accept? How do we ensure that individual rights to speech are protected? How do we protect people from harassment or abuse, and how does this balance against the fundamental right to be offensive? Discussion about these is way more interesting than hot takes about how we're all going to prison for being mean on Twitter. And worst of all it detracts from the serious conversation to be had about how grossly inappropriate the reaction in this specific case is.

I 100% agree with you. There is strong indication we are heading towards a more volatile world, and we need to collectively discuss these questions.

I'd like to add that most posters here on HN are arguing conditional on living in a Western democracy. And most Western democracies have set different restrictions - but all do have some restrictions. E.g. it's illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany.

By that logic if you are in favour of actionable threats being illegal you should have no problem with this. It's just speech after all.

I'm also in favour of limits on speech, but I draw the line at threats and sustained harassment. I don't think the tweet in the article rises to that level, and I don't think I'm a hypocrite for allowing that tweet but not allowing threats.

I do understand there are benefits to the all-or-nothing approach to free speech though.

Just like how speed limits necessitate the arrest of everyone who drives.

...over the speed limit, yes. The point of parent's post is that the offensive nature of a statement or speech in general is subjective and can change with whims and the time. A speed limit is objective and quantifiable; if you go over the speed limit stated you get fined, there's no room for interpretation

Speed limits are not objective at all - Germany infamously does not have speed limits on highways.

And yes, speed limit laws, do change over time.

And no, you can't be punished for having broken a speed limit in the past, that is not in effect today.

Parent's comparison seems rather apt.

They obviously meant speed is quantifiable. You can measure speed and say "you violated the limit".

Yes, but it doesn't strengthen the argument.

If society A says the speed limit is X and society B it's Y and society C it's infinite. What's the point that speed is objectively measurable?

That making a rule even makes sense. It is not an argument as to what amount is sensible, just that "amount" is sensible.

You’re missing the point.

Society A and society B won’t disagree on whether something is moving at 150km/hr.

Well, they might if a physicist gets involved and starts complaining that no one has defined their point of reference.

Your comparison would be true if the speed limit differentiated on the intent on the speeder, e.g. person A can drive over the speed limit but not person B because person B has the wrong intent.

In the UK it does. If you are speeding because you are an appropriately trained person performing emergency response duties then it's not illegal.

It is not comparable, see this comment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30877026

Ambulance, firefighters, etc.

They can do that because of regulation, not intent.

It is more like this, person A is in a hurry and is allowed to drive over the speed limit because person A is good person, but person B, who also is in a hurry, is a scumbag and therefore person B is not allowed to drive over the speed limit. It is very similar to how woke culture works.

We can objectively measure speed.

Please detail how we can objectively measure “offense”.

It’s more that it should be clearly defined what counts as ‘limits on speech’.

“Nazi glorification” is fairly specific. “Grossly offensive” is not.

If nobody is aware that it’s prosecutable that you are happy someone is dead (a perfectly valid opinion), then you shouldn’t prosecute people for it.