The answer is that the right to free speech does not provide a trick to get around other laws. How close to violence do you have to get? That crime/tort is usually called "assault" and (IANAL) the standard is usually on the order of "would a reasonable person thing he was about to be subject to some kind of physical attack". So brandishing a knife and saying in a serious tone "prepare to be stabbed" would count. Saying "I think anyone whose favorite band is 'Green Day'" would probably not.

We also have laws and civil actions for fraud, defamation, slander, libel. For all of them a key component is that you are lying to achieve some end- take money, or ruin someone's reputation.

These lines are actually very easy to draw. If the thing you are bothered by and trying to outlaw is the thought behind them then they are protected. If you are trying to stop something that would be considered criminal or a civil tort regardless of how it was achieved (stealing, making some think he is about to get hurt, ruining someone's reputation) then it is not protected.

Sounds like a straw man. The comment did not say “no restrictions whatsoever” - my read is that it said that even the most sensible sounding restrictions on incitement to violence have their difficulties. It’s messy and nuanced.

I agree with your sentiment to deal more with actual, not theoretical problems. However, I think there have been enough actual historical examples of abuses of power in free speech regulations that are self-reinforcing. This should create a high bar when considering any particular restriction. It’s not paranoia, it’s lessons learned.

So some restrictions? Sure, and the courts have indeed allowed some. But they are and ought to be well-reasoned exceptions with clear distinctions so we don’t end up with something akin to a thought-police.

> We cannot be so paranoid about potential future government harms to us that we overlook the immediate dangers of current and ongoing harms done person-to-person.

We don't need to look at potential future government harms, we only need to look at past actual governments. If my past government has taken it on themselves to illegally and irresponsibly repress speech, and I believe they did, why would I want to give current governments the power to legally repress speech? The government is formed in the same structure, and is likely to repeat the same mistakes, and frankly is likely to illegally repress speech again in the future, but I'd at least like to have the courts to fall back on (although even that isn't always enough)

In America we seem to have a fairly decent handle on those issues. Exceptions apply of course. We are now dealing with edge cases such as the infamous baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. The main issues such as fraud, threats, etc. are handled pretty well via existing law.

Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures?

I see more "grudging acceptance" than any sort of good control.

And if that's what the people want, that's fine.

But in my view, if we wanted to do better on those things, we should have the freedom as a society to do those things. That's the place I argue against "free speech absolutism" from. Would we then change our mind later, or put different regulations in place? Quite likely! But that's perfectly fine. The only way to not change is to die.

> Do we really have a great handle on things like swatting? The wave of ICO scams a few years back? Death threats to local government officials or public figures?

No, but none of those are free speech issues. Swatting involves deceiving law enforcement; ICOs were something nobody with any real law enforcement or policy power understood well at the time but they’ve been taking the time to learn (emphasis on time) and death threats are generally more an issue of resources. Any dumbass can create an anonymous email address and send threats. Unmasking all of the dumbasses willing to send them is generally more resource intensive than providing temporary protection and investigating the veracity of the threats or the likelihood they will be carried out; but if you did unmask them it would typically mean at minimum a trip to the psych ward for them to be held and evaluated.

I think so, all of the items you mentioned are illegal and punished by the law. Laws can only be enforced after a crime has been committed, not really sure what you are advocating for.

Things like "puffery" and other "I wasn't being serious" defenses. Good luck prosecuting those things when everyone can hide behind "speech alone is harmless."

Note also that the comment I was originally replying to was saying we already have too many restrictions on speech. So they'd presumably want to loosen those things even more.

Per my other comment, you cannot hide behind "speech alone is harmless". If a reasonable person would think you were joking it might be a defense but if you took the money anyway, I doubt that defense would hold up.

We could easily make the penalty for SWATting life in prison. If you got caught the only free speech defense I could imagine would be that you sincerely believed that SWAT was needed and you were mistaken. Sometimes that defense would work, but I can imagine all kinds of scenarios in which the defense would be useless, e.g. you did it to the same guy multiple times, or you don't live anywhere near the location you sent SWAT to

Slight correction: the baker refused to bake a cake celebrating a gay marriage (i.e. the refusal was not about who was asking for it but what was being asked for).

Yes, you are right. If I remember correctly he did offer to sell them a premade generic cake, he just did not want to create a custom one for the wedding. My memory may be faded though.