They DO limit free speech, you cannot publicly display someone's address, and yes I'm using it to make a point about consistency ; if you can't reveal an address, why can you reveal other purely private matters. I don't dispute if you actually can or not
-
-
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @arthur_affect and
"If you can't legally reveal an address, why can you legally reveal a name" is a legal question. Either you care about the law or you don't. Caring selectively is ridiculous.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Eristae @arthur_affect and
I care. I made a point about consistency. I didn't make a point about what law actually says. Easy enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @arthur_affect and
If you don't actually care what the law says, then you don't care about the law.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Eristae @arthur_affect and
I do care, I just did not make a point about it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
I made a point about what it SHOULD say in my humble opinion
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
Your opinion is bad, and mindless "logical consistency" when making laws is an aesthetic preference from nerds that has no actual moral or practical value
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Laws do not need to be consistent? Interesting
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
Lol what you're talking about isn't even "inconsistency", just SCOPE You haven't even given a definition of "private information", just asserted it as though it were obvious
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
And the idea that something that involves your personal life is automatically "private information" is absurd What if someone cheats on their wife by parading their mistress in front of everyone at the office Christmas party, then feels bad and tries to kill the story
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes
Anyway to answer your question, no, laws don't have to be consistent They have exceptions and qualifications and ask that shit both written into the statute and carved out by case law all the time That's half the fun
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
I don't think "anti-doxing laws" that specifically prohibit sharing certain specific facts about someone constitute some kind of logical inconsistency with the First Amendment But I also don't actually care
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
There's a tension, certainly, but we have lots of situations in law where two (or more) different ideals are at tension with one another. In almost every last such situation, the law strikes some sort of middle ground. Balancing tests are way more common than brightlines.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.