[emptysongglass]

> But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling.

That doesn't and shouldn't matter. I don't want people getting arrested for doing any of these things, even if I disagree with them. Do you know how disruptive it is to your life, let alone your emotional health, to be arrested?

I'm also a Dane. Denmark is worlds worse than the US in free speech and it's getting worse. This applies across the EU where people like the Spanish prime minister thinks no one deserves anonymity on the internet.

[cauch]

> That doesn't and shouldn't matter.

I fully disagree. Arrest should be "neutral", not based on the political content, but on the social intent.

If you believe X is good for the society, good, talk about it, have a debate, bring arguments.

If you believe X is good for the society but push for it by being a troll, then, you get arrested. Not because of what you've said, but because you have been a nuisance.

The fact that you are being a nuisance just disqualifies you. If you are unable to have an adult behavior, you have nothing to bring to the discussion, and you shoot yourself in the foot.

If I organise a debate and someone arrives, jumps on the table, drops their trousers and defecates in the middle of the table, it does not matter what are their opinion, it does not matter if I'm personally impacted by the presence of the poo, it does not matter if "you can just wipe it and proceed". This person chooses, by their action, to disqualify themselves.

And the fact they then whine "by freedom of speech" as if they were the victim while they chosen, consciously, to be prick, is just pathetic.

[bluegatty]

There should be no arrest without obvious evidence of a crime. These thinngs are not complicated - aka collecting evidence and testimony.

It's just 'what some guy said on twitter'.

They can literally apply an algo to determine whether it's lawful or not.

And it should almost never be unlawful.

'Hate Speech' is as not remotely dangerous as lies and people acting in bad faith. (Not saying I support egregious forms of hate speech, but we should strongly err on the side of open expressoin).

The most dangerous people are those lying for political or ideological causes, which is completely legal (and probably shoudl be) but we have to watch out for it.

[cauch]

Which "arrest" are you even talking about? And which "evidence" are you talking about?

In these examples, these people are getting into trouble for being pricks. There is plenty of evidence about them, objectively, being pricks.

As for the consequences, as I've said, my point is that the world is a Gaussian curve: the majority of cases will be "well-proportionate", the existence of outliers does not demonstrate oppression. Especially when some of these cases were condemned as disproportionate by even "left-wing" people.

> 'Hate Speech' is as not remotely dangerous as lies and people acting in bad faith.

While I agree lies and bad faith should have more consequences, the thing is that "Hate Speech" is utterly useless.

"Hate Speech" is never needed to express your opinion."Hate Speech" is never needed to propose solution, or convince someone else that your idea is good.

It is like saying "well, I randomly spit in people in the street, but it's not as bad as lying, so why are people faster to condemn my actions". Because spitting is useless, it does not bring anything, you don't need to do it.

[bluegatty]

If you think that people should be arrested for 'being pricks' then you are the problem here entirely.

Your assessment here that somehow 'language that does not propose a solution' should somehow be banned is Orwellian.

People can say what they want unless a direct call to assault.

Everything else is a choice - people want to use the N-word in their place of work -> they get fired. In front a a judge -> fined. Walking down the street -> people avoid them like turds.

People lying on social media -> fact checked, marginalized, punted form the Televised Debate.

None of that is illegal.

[cauch]

> If you think that people should be arrested for 'being pricks' then you are the problem here entirely.

It is not what I'm saying. I'm saying they are not arrested because of their opinion, they are arrested for their actions. It is not a "freedom of speech" issue, it is about "civility".

You may consider that arresting these people for that is too far (good news, not only me, but the majority of people, including on the left, seem to agree. In these examples, the process concluded it was a mistake, and the person won the case).

By the way, I've asked you which arrest you are talking about, because of some of the examples, there were no arrest at all. Just someone said "oh, I don't like that" and you starting to cry "boohoo, they are arresting me". Talking earlier about people lying, that is a good example.

But this is not a "freedom of speech" issue.

> Your assessment here that somehow 'language that does not propose a solution' should somehow be banned is Orwellian.

Again another straw man argument.

I am against these arrests, like the majority of the people, including the left-wing people. These arrests are the result of over-zealous policemen. But these arrests are not happening because of the person's opinion, they are happening because the person is being an idiot and act in a way where someone not stupid will know they should avoid.

Again, it does not mean they should be arrested.

But it means it is not a freedom of speech issue. These are just losers with not very smart opinion, who acted stupidly and ended up getting some trouble.

No opinion was ever suppressed. Whatever opinion these people have, anyone can express exactly the same opinion content (simply avoiding to do it stupidly), and they will be perfectly fine. In none of these cases, the problem was the opinion itself: you cannot arrest someone for their opinions.