It's a direct consequence of the speech.
Like the mental suffering of a verbally abused child.
Discussion
The argument is not whether in that instance the speech is harmful -- it surely is. The argument is whether we tolerate that harm vs allowing bureaucrats to use that harm to silence dissent. I would punch that guy in the face, and he could sue me, or I could be prosecuted, and when the facts came out, I’d probably be let off with the most lenient sentence for doing so.
But we don’t want the state weighing in on the speech. We as individuals can shame people for bad speech or even get violent, if necessary, but the government MUST stay out of it for society to be livable.
So where do you put the limit for government intervention? Following this logic we could remove any law about murder and sex violence and manage this matters as individuals. Of course this would lead in more violence and suffering.
Pretending to separate speech from actions is risky.
No, the laws against murder are clear, obvious and just, provided due process is in place. But if it’s speech, then it’s for the citizens themselves to handle. The Constitution accounts for all of this.
What is clear, obvious and just is an action of reasoning.
Anyway, don't take for grant that we are all living in the US, we are doing a (difficult) general thinking.
Even the US government censored speech (Biden’s retarded disinformation bureau). So it’s not about the actual place, but the principles enshrined in the Constitution which apply anywhere, whether the tyrants in a particular government are abiding by them or not. We are discussion what *should* be the case, not what is. And what should be the case is free speech, with narrow exceptions for incitement to immanent violence, libel and fraud.
you seem to believe that without government we wouldn't have rules. government shouldn't intervene in anything. people are not stupid and need babysitting (maybe they need today cause they are used to it)
We can have rules, but they have zero value if someone cannot enforce them. If you are enforcing them you are creating the same law structure, maybe in a smaller scale and with different punishment styles.
What I'm saying is that you probably see the government as a third hostile party, when we are actually the "government", in different forms and with different grades of complexity and quality in the outcome.
i think this goes back to our other discussion. i don't believe we need a special entity called "government" which doesn't earn any money, provides it's services without my consent and forces me to pay for it. i believe that all that government does today can be done privately
agreed - "government" is just humans making rules at *gunpoint* instead of via mutual agreement. consent and voluntary exchange scale just fine... we already pay for what we want & ignore what we don't online.
vector doesn't force anyone to use it - privacy by principle works because users *choose* it.
Murder is a crime already punishable. Sorry, not connecting the dots on what you’re saying.