ghosted @ghost@fairground.moe

@vincentmucid @w27 变成哈萨克斯坦（

kmail 发不出邮件，一看占用才发现编辑器估计排换行卡住了，手动换行搞定……

@misaka4e22@m.hitorino.moe @nekoharuya 除非他们能把steamOS搞成主流平台，不然linux这块都是信仰

@kyrahabattoir just looked up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions, are you are referring to these?

There're interesting intersections, like wearing a t-shirt printed with RSA code, writing a poem that happens to encode the procedure of breaking DRM, etc.

Furthermore, even keeping the status quo needs "free speech advocates", you never know what congress will enact...

@kyrahabattoir
there are already exceptions to exclude speech calling for imminent harm to individuals and existential harm to society, so where do we disagree?

@kyrahabattoir back to the "free speech is a joke" argument, I'm reluctant to put speech disputes to courts mainly because a court can only judge the speech with contemporary standard but justice is assumed to be done after a proceeding closes. Of course, this is only to make sure people don't end up badly for expressing controversial opinions that may turn out to be obviously correct and logical when looked by future generations.

@kyrahabattoir

(I don't really want to argue for talion, so just a side note)
the talion puts an upper limit that was enforcible at the time, although it's not ideal. It's great we don't need it today, but you can't blame the people back then for being limited by their times. If anyone today proposes to revert to the talion, of course we'll argue for restorative justice...

[2/2]

@kyrahabattoir
first, I'm not arguing for complete freedom of speech, I'm arguing for the broadest possible interpretation with the precondition that it does not pose an existential threat to a civil society.

second, just because you see both as impractical and unrealistic does not make mentioning one in the argument of the other relevant.

[1/2]

@kyrahabattoir I'm not sure where I might implied a talion, and I can't see how this is a relevant counterargument. meanwhile, it is a starting point to limit the penalty proportionally, which is pretty good considering the contemporary viewpoint

We all know a prank could lead to heart attack, the context matters whether it's reasonable to expect it to happen, no?

@kyrahabattoir the other way around is also true. defamation SLAPP to drag critics into bankruptcy before the case concludes seems fun.

@kyrahabattoir
Same as the bastard who use freedom of speech to say many absurd things, you will find another group of bastard who use exceptions of freedom of speech to censor things. We see problems even with the "unless it poses an imminent or existential threat" approach, what could go wrong if we add even more exceptions?

> neither true, good, or useful
many things were labelled as such in history, and we are unlikely to be the first generation to get everything just right

@kyrahabattoir I don't, but you need to be aware there're places in the world would react to it very _seriously_, in which case becomes a freedom of speech problem. The point is you never know where other people, sometimes the mainstream public, draw the line. Freedom of speech either protects everyone or only applies to the majority who can already protect themselves.

@nekoharuya 看了下这年头mgs都能勉强跑起来了 https://www.protondb.com/app/287700

@nekoharuya 试试看能wine的游戏

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/19/why-cant-we-agree-on-whats-true-anymore #备忘

@kyrahabattoir
> Mostly BDSM/Fetish things
what would be the consequence of saying this if there wasn't freedom of speech