I am assuming you do not live in the US. There are laws on the books that if your actions (this would be the whole turning personal, private information over to someone who then goes out and kills the person whose information you gave out) cause or help the murder of another then you are as guilty as the one who did the crime. You can and will be charged with the crime so long as the cops and DA can show what you did and how you did it. So... no reason to use this as an excuse to remove freedoms we enjoy.
Um. The time for this argument probably would have been before
you were presented with an example where people did exactly as I claimed and faced no criminal charges for it, not in response to it.
Again, there are laws on the books that make it illegal to attack someone. And again, you cannot dictate what is and isn't allowed to be said. Once someone tries to define what is acceptable we all lose. If someone is stupid enough to go beyond just running their mouth THEN and ONLY THEN are they guilty and subject to prosecution. Is it fair? No. But guess what - life isn't fair. It isn't fair for anyone.
Remember the bolded part. It will come up shortly.
And how many times does it have to be pointed out that neither Val nor I have a problem with the limitations that are already in place? We both have the view that to put MORE limitations on freedom of speech is a dangerous thing and not worth the risk. I think now you are arguing just to argue because you sure as hell aren't reading what has been said.
Remember that bolded bit above? Remember when you claimed that the moment a court said that a group couldn't say absolutely anything it wanted with complete immunity from the law, we all lose? Remember when you claimed that free speech dies the moment government suppresses speech X but not speech Y? Remember when you claimed an absolute right to say anything you want? Remember when, prior to this post, you said you found the existing restrictions on speech in the US acceptable? Wait, no, I made that one up.
Hopefully, you can understand why one might be a little confused here.
That said, I'll take this at face value: You hold that the US has the perfect level of restriction on free speech - all of its current restrictions are acceptable, but anything further is a slippery slope to tyranny. What makes the US perfect on this, then?
-You can intentionally incite others to wage a campaign of murder on your behalf, unless your targets are politicians.
-You can't arrange words or numbers in patterns that other people already have, except when you can. Note that this means you can't even say literally nothing at all
for a certain specific period of time.
-You're encouraged to speak out when your employer is doing something illegal, unless that employer is the government.
-You can't lie to someone in order to get them to give you money, unless you represent a political or religious group.
-You can't lie about someone in a way that costs them money, but you can lie about them so you can assault them with impunity.
-You can't tell anyone when the government unethically and probably-illegally orders you to violate others' privacy, but you can say other things that communicate this just as effectively.
-You can't threaten someone with physical harm, but you can badger them into killing themselves.
-According to your argument above, information that can be gathered on a public street (photo and addresses) is private, but what's in your underwear can be disclosed by anyone with impunity, regardless of the harm it causes you.
From outside, this looks like a rather arbitrary set of rules; the only consistent pattern I see is "don't screw with the powerful or their money". Isn't that the exact thing you were afraid of? What makes this set of rules so superior to any and all other possible sets?
EDIT: I should note that, on review, I did miss Valthazar's first statement in support of US practice. This was my error, and I apologize for it. But... well, I reviewed the thread twice looking for yours. Maybe next time you could check whether you've actually said something before accusing me of failing to read it?