[falcolas]

> What about child pornography?

It's amusing how frequently this comes up. If someone distributes child pornography, arrest them using the existing laws of the land.

"But what if it spreads from there?" I hear someone saying. Well, they're still posting illegal content, so arrest them too.

It's silly to assume that the freedom of speech implies some kind of inherent free pass from consequences of your speech.

[danaris]

I think what you're missing in this is that the only reason that stands is because images of child pornography, which would otherwise be considered protected speech just like any other image, have been declared to be illegal.

It's not that "there are laws against child pornography, which are completely separate from the debate about free speech."

Laws against the production of (actual) child pornography are irrelevant to the debate about free speech.

Laws against its distribution are absolutely relevant, because "distribution of child pornography" is just a kind of speech.

(To be clear, I oppose free-speech maximalism in general, and have no trouble with the idea of laws criminalizing the distribution of child pornography.)

[falcolas]

Here's the problem with this method of thinking: Any speech could be considered to be illegal by somebody. Better to create technology to let people talk, and leave the enforcement of laws to the individual countries. Attempting to pre-emptively censor speech because it's potentially illegal somewhere results in no speech.

[danaris]

...I'm literally responding to you dismissing the question of whether one should view blocking distributing child pornography as being a restriction on free speech by saying (paraphrased) "there are laws against distributing child pornography, so it must not be a restriction on free speech."

I was merely pointing out that, if we want to have a discussion about what types of speech should and shouldn't be allowed, we need to be clear with ourselves and each other about what actually constitutes speech, and restrictions thereupon.

I'm having a hard time telling where you're reading in my post a suggestion that (e.g.), because criticism of the Thai monarchy is strictly prohibited in Thailand, we should technologically restrict such speech in the US.

[falcolas]

To my mind, we're having a disagreement on a fundamental point:

I believe that just because some forms of speech has consequences, that doesn't inherently restrict speech.

What I'm reading of your stance is that since there are consequences for some forms of speech, this forms an implied and mandatory restriction on speech.

The difference is subtle, but it's leading to us talking past each other, particularly when it comes to discussing technology that enables free speech.

Unfortunately, this difference is not something I feel I can resolve on this forum.

Good luck!

[danaris]

There are natural consequences of speech, and there are legal consequences of speech.

Natural consequences are things like if I say "I hate people who wear hats," and I get an internet mob coming after me to defend hats.

Legal consequences would be if I happen to wander into a jurisdiction that has outlawed badmouthing hat-wearers, and I get arrested.

Legal consequences of speech are restrictions on free speech, because they are something humans specifically and deliberately chose and could un-choose. Natural consequences are just that: natural.