cyberfae

I think the government should only regulate credible threats made with the intent to terrify, with the onus on the prosecutor to prove that the threat meets both criteria. This is how the first amendment is already applied, you can say anything short of yelling bomb in an airport or saying you will kill someone while showing them a picture of their house.

That being said, the government should allow private citizens to sue when speech still harms, but does not meet the criteria for a credible threat, such as; libel, slander, hate speech, or particularly dangerous misinformation. However the government should not be allowed to pursue these cases on their own, only act as mediator alongside a jury. The burden must also be on the accuser to demonstrate such harm.

This way there is still a legal path to restricting hate speech, but with a bar so high it’s only worth going after the most egregious offenders. If you allow the government to define hate speech, then you open a path to censorship of political opinions. On the other hand, if you regulate nothing, you get people screaming bomb in at airports or trying to convince you that drinking industrial bleach can cure almost everything.

Maybe they got Office Depot and Home Depot confused?