Following a French court's ruling that Twitter has to provide the true identity of some folks who made anti-Semitic comments online:
'You never needed a constitution to protect popular people’s right to express popular opinions. When they say dumb things, nobody really minds, either. When stupid people express popular opinions, nobody objects, so no problem. Freedom of Speech exists specifically to protect despicable people who are uttering intolerable opinions, and that’s a vital protection.'
And as he notes later on (and what I always think of): what is currently considered unthinkable, awful, anti-social, harmful, or otherwise therefore criminal to day today may be very different tomorrow — and vice-versa.
Embedded Link
Freedom Of Speech Is Primarily The Right For Stupid People To Say Dumb Things (And That’s A GOOD Thing) – Falkvinge on Infopolicy
Yesterday, a French court decided that people on Twitter have no right to anonymity when posting xenophobic comments. This is deeply troubling: the court says that unpopular opinions don’t have the sa…
Google+: View post on Google+
Yeah, basically. It turns out that, no matter what promises you make to uphold free speech, they always falter in the face of popular backlash unless protected by that one impenetrable defense: anonymity.
And anonymity, to my mind, is not so much for the general societal protections, but protection against the state.
Freedom of expression used.
Aside from the clear property violations — trespass, graffiti — it’s not clear to me what would be a bright line action judgment to take on the other actions. Should the elderly gentleman who blew smoke in one kid’s face be charged with assault? Should the people who shouted “Tramp!” at them be prosecuted for being mean?