The problem with trolling is twofold:
- I'm not sure whether cyber-bullying falls into this category. If it does, then it is a major problem that has led to hundreds, if not thousands, of suicides. This is emotional abuse and is unacceptable.
- Not everyone has the right attitude to handle trolling. It's not enough to say "Just ignore it." People react to attacks and this can lead to serious consequences (see #1). So, although I certainly get your point, I have to consider not just physical but psychic impact.
Indirect harm has to, of course, be defined. I can provide this example:
A parent is an addict. If you study the impact this has on the children, even if the person doesn't physically abuse the children, you'll discover that the consequences of the addiction can range from minor to severe. I was recently talking with a man who had serious issues with being in social situations that involved more than a small number of people. His father was an alcoholic and would behave terribly in social situations once he was drunk enough. This caused the social anxiety that crippled this man for many years until he realized this connection. It still troubles him but he can deal with it now.
Here's another example:
A child watches his mother routinely be abused by his father. The father never hurts the kids and may even be loving, but the child grows up, at the very least, believing that it is acceptable and even normal for a man to abuse a woman, but that is only one possible result. Other children may become depressed, fearful of males, become lesbians because that seems to be the only safe choice, and girls will be very likely to get into the same sort of relationship as their parents. If you just do the math, the exponential growth of dysfunction of this type is enormous, especially when you consider that it can impact people who weren't raised in that sort of situation.
There are any number of other examples, if you think about it, of what I mean by indirect harm.
I assume you meant to write "drunk driving" but autocorrect sabotaged you. :) DUI definitely needs to be illegal but the problem is that people will continue to do stupid things. It's an example of a very complex issue that has no end in sight. The only thing we can do is target behavior, help those in need and legalize as much as possible while mitigating direct and indirect harm.
I understand what you mean about not interfering in life decisions and, provided that socialization and education cover the bases thoroughly, I can mostly agree with you. Unfortunately, "mentally impaired" is about as specific as "indirect harm", so that needs to be cleared up. There are examples of mentally impaired people who have travelled the world, been to meet the POTUS, spoken to large audiences and so on, so it's not even a clear-cut issue. By the same token, I have heard from kids who make better decisions than world leaders - so who should be exempted?
Yes, freedom to do the wrong thing is important, but the lack of responsibility many people exhibit in making decisions has an impact not only on their children but on society at large. A drunk driver kills a mother, causing the father to spiral into depression and take to drinking too much and hitting his kids. And so on. Humans have been given freedom but, time and again, some of them make such poor decisions that they make psychopaths look good. Just look at the US leadership. ;)
To the first point, I certainly believe that emotional abuse is a dick move but I don't think trolling or cyber bullying falls into that category nor do I think being an asshole should be illegal. Suicide is ultimately the choice of the individual (this is another discussion but I believe it should, itself, be legal but a also discouraged). As I said in the previous comment, I draw a line once someone make credible threats or starts releasing someone's personal information (address, phone number, et cetera). Like drunk driving, these things are specific actions that can be addressed individually without punishing people based on how hurt someone's feelings are. If we allow for such laws we end up in a situation like they currently have in Britain where a person was prosecuted for quoting song lyrics that offended someone.
Your second example is, again, a specific behavior that is (in most countries) already illegal. It would be better to enforce the laws that ban domestic abuse. Plus we really can't say that drugs and alcohol cause such violence. I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest causal link between the two. In my experience, if someone is belligerent and abusive when they are drunk, it is because they are belligerent and abusive all the time. Blaming this type of thing on a substance is, to my mind, as flawed as blaming violent media for real violence.
To your first example, because I draw the line at psychical harm (or the threat there of), this is a nonissue. Lots of things can cause social anxiety. If someone is an annoying, embarrassing drunk (I have a few of these in my own family) and it makes that person's child uncomfortable, this is still not a valid reason to lock a person in a cage, remove the child, or become involved in his or her life. If, on the other hand, there is an actual danger to the child there are already systems in place to address that directly.
As far as the term mentally impaired goes I agree that is vague but if i had to draw a hard line, I would place it where the law already places it. That is, if a person has their power of attorney removed, then they are no longer able to decide things for themselves. This functions with children as well. The age of consent is fine for me in terms where to draw that line, but I am open do discussing what that age should be. In some states and countries it is definitely too low (14 in Alabama if I am not mistaken, gross) but 18 seems a bit high (I had a car, a full time job, and and a 27 year old girlfriend when I was 17).
All of the above issues could be ironed out without much effort, I suspect. It is your last paragraph where I believe we have our great difference. I acknowledge that any freedom carries a risk. The question is whether a person believes that freedom or safety are of greater value. I, personally, would rather be less safe and have more freedom. This is an issue that I am consistent beyond the drug debate. I will risk being bullied into suicide if it means we can all speak our minds. I will risk being killed by a drunk driver if it means people aren't arrested for drinking. I am willing to risk being shot by a crazy person if it means people can continue to have their property. The list goes on.
There are a number of other things that could be brought up but I think we may be at a bit of an impasse for the above philosophical reason (which is fine). I appreciate your willingness to debate me on this topic. All too often, when I cover these issues, I end up with rambling comments about religious concepts of purity and what not. We are all free to disagree but I will leave with you this question: No society is safer than a police state but what is life really worth under those conditions?