You have to prove that an actual crime or harm was involved. There is some nuance there, but there absolutely is not a censorious bureaucrat issuing warning letters and fines for things they don't like.
The point is that you're now defending a completely different position from "Free speech is absolute." Determining what should count as "an actual crime or harm", how it can be proven, and so on, is pretty much the entirety of the problem you were claiming to have solved.
There have been some American thinkers like Murray Rothbard that argue for absolute free speech including threats and libel. It's true though that most Americans are absolutely full of shit as soon as you dig in the slightest on their views on free speech.
Free speech doesn't include the freedom to use speech to do illegal harms (that are themselves, not speech).
In other words, "Speech + Offense" is prosecutable, for illegal "Offense".
You don't get a hall pass to use speech to commit a crime, and not be culpable for the crime.
Fraud, libel, harassment, giving false testimony in court, colluding with competitors to artificially increase prices,
broadcasting a copyright work, signing your name (just your name!) to an illegal contract, etc. all may involve speech, but the offense is defined by the non-speech functional impact.
Convincing someone to kill someone for you is not legal, because murder is not legal.
People generally have to prove that the speech was intentionally or recklessly geared to cause harm to others.
Although many cases may be clear, there isn't a mathematical separation between the two, so we have courts and precedence, and further reviews, as the practical means of drawing the line.
And that is true for the vast majority of laws and rights.
I don't think that's the case in the US. For instance, if you take a picture of a patient you are treating, go home and send that picture to your wife and say "treated this lady for syphilis today" you are violating HIPAA despite the fact you're telling 100% truth, conveying it privately with no expectation or desire it will ever impact the victim, and literally are only conveying it as information to be consumed and not acted on then it is still illegal.
That is breaking a law that protects patients' privacy. Nobody should distribute private information given to them under an agreement to maintain privacy.
Nobody is forced to abide by HIPPA, without their consent. Nobody is forced to sign a HIPAA agreement.
In fact, nobody is forced to work in the medical professions, or look at private medical data, in the US. And no law prohibits asking a patient or caregivers if they are ok with some harmless informal sharing, and explaining the urge to them...
This is similar to the voluntary civil jeopardy of signing an NDA before being informed of trade secrets. Penalties may vary.
HIPAA prohibits share private medical information that isn't yours. Regardless of signing anything or how you got it.
And no medical establishment can (legally) share records with you, without a legal purpose, and documentation you know your obligations or are legally allowed to have the information.
Nobody cares what your opinion is, without an explanation.
This is HN. Two-way curiosity and friendly discussion are encouraged. Enlighten me, instead of posing, please.
Yes you understand now. Every time you understand, you move the goal posts. You've moved them twice now, this time simply declaring the speech you don't like "isn't yours." At first it was about offenses that cause harm, then it was essentially about contract law. And then when you found out there was no contract, then you just moved the goal posts to the patient owning the information inside the provider's brain.
There is no curiosity in your approach, you know in your heart of hearts you're simply backtracking and then shifting the posts everytime your claims are wrong.
I was certainly thinking about things more. Part of a normal discussion is people try to be clearer with their thinking as they discuss something.
And clarifying can be either or both tuning reasoning or tuning communication.
You realize you can nit pic at almost any comment with some validity?
And you didn’t include any of your own substantive thoughts, which I apparently moved closer to, until your second comment after I asked you for them?
So what to do? Just communicate in a positive and clear way yourself if you have something to add.
I come here to learn. I would rather learn from you than wonder why you make negative comments, in a discussion where you and your thoughts are welcome.
