> But it doesn't mean you get to harass people, send death threats, post people's private information (doxxing), and spread nude photos that were never supposed to be released.
That is accurate and there are legal remedies for that.
For instance, Kurt Eichenwald, a person on the receiving end of most of the activities you mentioned, collected the evidence and used the justice system to secure a Grand Jury indictment against his harasser [1], [2]
Here is the abridged transcript of the indictment:
> CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I,
> On or about December 15, 2016, in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, defendant John Rayne Rivello, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, and intimidate, did knowingly and intentionally use an interactive computer service and an electronic communication service to engage in a course of conduct that placed a person in reasonable fear of the death of and serious bodily injury to that person and caused, attempted to cause, and would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to that person;
> in that Rivello posed as Twitter user Ari Goldstein and used his Twitter account @jew _goldstein to post an animated Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) on the victim's Twitter feed, knowing that the victim was an epileptic and knowing that the animated GIF was a strobe bearing the message "YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS."
And here is the central point
> In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A) and (B), and 18 U .S.C. § 226l(b)(3). This criminal complaint is based on the facts set out in the attached affidavit.
Most of the activities you describe, online or whatnot, are already in the US Code as actual crimes. I do not believe private companies should take over the role of the government in policing speech through prior restraint simply out of the possibility of potential criminal activities. It creates a chilling effect on legitimate speech and a dangerous precedent of private companies (potentially in collusion with the government) being in position to stifle speech.
That is accurate and there are legal remedies for that. For instance, Kurt Eichenwald, a person on the receiving end of most of the activities you mentioned, collected the evidence and used the justice system to secure a Grand Jury indictment against his harasser [1], [2]
Here is the abridged transcript of the indictment:
> CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I,
> On or about December 15, 2016, in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, defendant John Rayne Rivello, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, and intimidate, did knowingly and intentionally use an interactive computer service and an electronic communication service to engage in a course of conduct that placed a person in reasonable fear of the death of and serious bodily injury to that person and caused, attempted to cause, and would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to that person;
> in that Rivello posed as Twitter user Ari Goldstein and used his Twitter account @jew _goldstein to post an animated Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) on the victim's Twitter feed, knowing that the victim was an epileptic and knowing that the animated GIF was a strobe bearing the message "YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS."
And here is the central point
> In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A) and (B), and 18 U .S.C. § 226l(b)(3). This criminal complaint is based on the facts set out in the attached affidavit.
Most of the activities you describe, online or whatnot, are already in the US Code as actual crimes. I do not believe private companies should take over the role of the government in policing speech through prior restraint simply out of the possibility of potential criminal activities. It creates a chilling effect on legitimate speech and a dangerous precedent of private companies (potentially in collusion with the government) being in position to stifle speech.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kurt-eichenwald-case-te...
[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/949676/downlo... (pdf)