Seems appropriate given the current emergency.
The immediate implication is that, in order to get something, the right approach is to want it more. This produces no benefit to anyone, but it lets you appropriate things that used to be assigned to other people.
I would prefer to relabel "wants" as "demands", admit they do indeed have different magnitudes, but also assign a quantity measuring the reasonableness of the demand. The mere fact that you want something isn't evidence that you should have it.
Not everyone, in the HN community, is a software engineer.
(Quick reference to "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" before I forget the name again.)
First, American freedom of speech isn't absolutist. There are laws against certain kinds of speech in the US, such as fraud, slander, libel, incitement to violence, conspiracy, etc. And many people seem to believe that Americans' right of association is in conflict with freedom of speech, as it allows the owners of private venues to determine what forms of speech can and cannot take place in those venues.
Second, this is not a strong argument in favor unless you happen to be an anti-vaxxer or simply lack empathy.
Let's go one by one:
* Fraud: not sure what you mean here. Fraudulent speech? Lying isn't a crime. Fraud is a crime that might involve speech, but there are more elements than simply stating an untruth.
* Slander/libel: Yes, this is an exception, but it is notably narrow and again has additional required elements.
* Incitement to violence: Nope. Incitement to _lawless_ action is simply one of the elements of the sole case in which someone can be prosecuted for _speech alone_ ("directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.")
* Conspiracy: Again, unsure what you mean. Where is the "conspiracy" exception to free speech?
Wellllll...
In the US, the courts are split over whether untrue speech is protected by the first amendment.
And there are some very wide-ranging laws that require "honest dealing" or "honest services" in general at all times.
[1] There were other methods, but the two I list here seem in my eyes to consist exclusively of untrue speech. There were also fraud charges associated with representing payments as donations to a charity (for tax reasons) when they were meant as quid pro quo payment for services. If the tax fraud was the basis for every fraud charge, I'll admit that this example is invalid.
He spoke out against vaccines on Facebook, and suggested using papaya leaves and/or vitamin C instead. You don't have to be an anti-vaxxer or lack empathy to disagree with his being arrested for this.
In other words, he suggested people in the midst of an outbreak of a deadly, contagious but treatable disease avoid that treatment in favor of homeopathic bullshit that will only result in more deaths and further contagion.
Believing he should be allowed to do so without consequence shows a complete lack of empathy for his victims.
Not really, though. I searched his name and found an interview with Stuff magazine[0] which describes him as a "Samoan traditional healer and well known anti-vaxxer." It also describes his social media efforts as being far more active than "just putting his opinion out there" would imply. This isn't some random guy the government decided to harass for "wrongthink", He's an activist trying to undermine and hinder his government's attempt to vaccinate people in the midst of a medical emergency, as part of a greater anti-vaccination movement.
[0]https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/117918981/samoa-...
I'm not so sure of that. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded American movie theater because of the danger it creates. The government in this case declared a state of emergency and this person ignored that emergency and instead fanned the anti-vaxx flames, which feels pretty similar to causing a stampede in a theater for no reason.
That seems like a cunning DA could argue reckless endangerment of a child to me...
Additionally, while the case involves "fire in a crowded theater", it's in a substantially more narrow concurrence that holds that the speech would have to, additionally, _actually produce_ said action. Under existing the "fire in a crowded theater standard" suggested here, yelling "FIRE" in a packed theater, but everyone ignoring you would be protected.
For the sake of argument, the law in Samoa under the state of emergency is that you must vaccinate. Is the accused not attempting to incite lawless behavior by telling people to not vaccinate? If one person resists because they read his FB posts, that seems enough to me.
It's fairly easy to see that this is the case just by looking at what Americans have actually said. A memorable example to me was Zach de la Rosa telling the crowd at Coachella 2007 that every President since Truman should be lined up and shot. That is absolutely inciting lawless action, but no one with any kind of understanding of US free speech law would suggest he could be prosecuted.
I still think the only reason this wouldn't be illegal in the US is that the underlying law forcing vaccination would probably be unconstitutional, not that the First Amendment protects anti-vaxx speech indefinitely.
Thanks for explaining everything!
It's not exactly like they took him out back and shot him for disagreeing. Though, it would be super ironic if he caught measles while locked up.
Is that "right" or "just" or "fair"? Hell no. But nobody ever said this life is fair.