I made a point about what it SHOULD say in my humble opinion
-
-
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 -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Indeed this has no business being told in a newspaper
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @Eristae and
Well, it's tawdry, but the newspaper can print it if they want Free speech
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
Keep in mind that the concept of free speech is meaningless outside 2A, which only protects from govment interference. Libel laws protect private citizens more than public figures, but this dude doesn't seem to have been libeled. There might be issues of ethics or common decency.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Winter_Maiden @Sigismond_bis and
Truth is an absolute defense against libel, yes It is an obviously true fact that Scott Alexander's actual last name is Siskind, and it cannot be illegal in any sense to broadcast that fact
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Winter_Maiden and
Even in cases of actual serious invasion of privacy, the law usually only deals with *revealing* the information initially (laws against breaking and entering, trespassing, unauthorized access, etc.) Once the information is known, sharing it is completely and totally legal
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes
I am not saying this is an unqualified good It's often obviously very bad, and laws have been passed piecemeal to try to deal with the worst cases (anti-revenge porn laws, anti-doxing laws, anti-paparazzi laws)
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Winter_Maiden and
However, these laws are often woefully limited in scope, because the importance our society places on the First Amendment is so high Otherwise all those whitepages sites (which form the basis of most successful doxes) would just be shut down
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Winter_Maiden and
In any case, the fact that the most obviously harmful cases of sharing true but "private" information have had laws passed against them -- broadcasting your Social Security number or nude photos of you taken with a telephoto lens -- does not mean it's illegal to say Scott's name
0 replies 1 retweet 7 likes
End of conversation
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.