It would clearly seem to be you who has not thought about this for five minutes. The absurdly broad extension you propose to the already absurdly broad policy would effectively chill all speech on any topics other than puppies or unicorn farts. Actually maybe just puppies… unicorn farts might after all violate EPA air quality standards.
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague.
The absurdly broad extension you propose to the already absurdly broad policy would effectively chill all speech on any topics other than puppies or unicorn farts.
You are wrong.
The top post on LW (discounting HoldenKarnofsky’s “Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI)”), is Yvain’s “Generalizing from One Example.” This post has nothing to do with crimes except a mention of shoplifting rates in one footnote.
I seriously doubt you have actually read “Three Felonies a Day,” or else you would not be citing it here—it is better classified as propaganda rather than research.
You do realize that much of the world, including much of the supposedly “civilized” world, has blasphemy laws on the books? What percentage of articles on LW (including their comment sections) do you think would run afoul of strict readings of such laws?
Also, I said “chill all speech”, not forbid it outright. If you’re forced, while writing, to wonder “is this violating some rule? Should I rephrase it to make it not violate?”, that’s what “chilled” speech means—forcing on you the cognitive burden of thinking in terms of “what won’t get me in trouble” rather than “what will communicate most effectively”
Or how about this: you characterized “Three Felonies a Day” as propaganda… I’m sure the author of the book would be quite upset to hear that. He might consider it to constitute some manner of defamation, or perhaps intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tortious interference perhaps? Disturbing the peace? YOUR COMMENT IS NOW BANNED!
please think about this for five minutes before upvoting or downvoting
Before upvoting your comment, or Eliezer’s post?
(If the latter, it seems that you are operating from the assumption that votes on the post reflect how much people agree with the proposed policy. This may not be true. I have upvoted the post although I oppose the policy, because I want to encourage discussing similar policies beforehand.)
But that’s the whole point of my objection. This distinction is what makes this policy such a bad idea. Ignoring the distinction is to ignore the point.
I am extremely in favor of this policy and would be in favor of extending it to posts or comments asking about the violation of any and all laws.
To all voters: please think about this for five minutes before upvoting or downvoting.
It would clearly seem to be you who has not thought about this for five minutes. The absurdly broad extension you propose to the already absurdly broad policy would effectively chill all speech on any topics other than puppies or unicorn farts. Actually maybe just puppies… unicorn farts might after all violate EPA air quality standards.
Keep in mind, the average American commits Three Felonies a Day
You are wrong.
The top post on LW (discounting HoldenKarnofsky’s “Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI)”), is Yvain’s “Generalizing from One Example.” This post has nothing to do with crimes except a mention of shoplifting rates in one footnote.
I seriously doubt you have actually read “Three Felonies a Day,” or else you would not be citing it here—it is better classified as propaganda rather than research.
You do realize that much of the world, including much of the supposedly “civilized” world, has blasphemy laws on the books? What percentage of articles on LW (including their comment sections) do you think would run afoul of strict readings of such laws?
Also, I said “chill all speech”, not forbid it outright. If you’re forced, while writing, to wonder “is this violating some rule? Should I rephrase it to make it not violate?”, that’s what “chilled” speech means—forcing on you the cognitive burden of thinking in terms of “what won’t get me in trouble” rather than “what will communicate most effectively”
Or how about this: you characterized “Three Felonies a Day” as propaganda… I’m sure the author of the book would be quite upset to hear that. He might consider it to constitute some manner of defamation, or perhaps intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tortious interference perhaps? Disturbing the peace? YOUR COMMENT IS NOW BANNED!
Before upvoting your comment, or Eliezer’s post?
(If the latter, it seems that you are operating from the assumption that votes on the post reflect how much people agree with the proposed policy. This may not be true. I have upvoted the post although I oppose the policy, because I want to encourage discussing similar policies beforehand.)
Advocating? Maybe. But asking? Hell no.
Please interpret the comment charitably; poster means real laws, not fake laws passed for purposes of selective enforcement.
But that’s the whole point of my objection. This distinction is what makes this policy such a bad idea. Ignoring the distinction is to ignore the point.
Because if a law is enforced selectively, it’s actually … what, exactly?