Shooting people is obviously against freedom, should be illegal and is illegal.
You're insinuating that if freedom of speech laws in the US were less principled, those people wouldn't have died. But maybe if news outlets didn't report on mass shootings those people wouldn't have died too, should we prohibit news outlets from reporting these things?
It's not the fault of free speech that some mentally unstable person killed people, the same way it's not the fault of the journalists that report these tragedies.
Moral principles don't need to be justified by the "legitimate public interest" (in the short run), otherwise we would kill all babies that we predict will become criminals, even thought they've done nothing wrong yet.
I think laws should be fair and consistent. Censorship is inconsistent with freedom and justice. Additionally, the interpretation of messages is subjective.
If laws are inconsistent and arbitrary (and consequently, unfair), then you might as well throw moral principles out the window altogether and become a fascist, a white supremacist, etc.
The only way to have a just society, in my opinion, is when freedom of the individual is the base of all laws, and those laws are logical and consistent with each other.
The one thing I dislike about Youtube and no one talks about is their aggresive lossy compression.
My monitor is only 1080p but I set the quality to 1440p or 4K if the video supports it, as those resolutions allow a higher bitrate and I can enjoy videos without noticeable distortion. I prefer my computer to downscale the image instead of Youtube butchering the whole thing by limiting the bitrate to an extreme.
I understand that Youtube has to optimize their storage and bandwidth, but still, if I see a video with too many compression artifacts I just close it.
> Why is that so hard to grasp for technical crowds?
Because laws concerning actual theft are objectively defined, and are logically consistent with themselves and other laws.
Laws about 'hacking', where the crime is simply a message, not a physical action, are extremely subjective. It revolves around intent more than the action.
For example: If a user goes to the website of theirbank.com and the root page is a list with all the credit card numbers of all the clients. Is he committing a crime? He used computers to get information that he shouldn't be allowed to see. Most people would say: no, he only wanted to visit the website.
If I see that the bank's API has no security, am I committing a crime?
If I use SQL injection to see all the users data, am I committing a crime?
Most people would say that it depends on intent, but intent is extremely subjective, and IMO a pretty bad way to define laws.
You're insinuating that if freedom of speech laws in the US were less principled, those people wouldn't have died. But maybe if news outlets didn't report on mass shootings those people wouldn't have died too, should we prohibit news outlets from reporting these things?
It's not the fault of free speech that some mentally unstable person killed people, the same way it's not the fault of the journalists that report these tragedies.