5 ms·

It's not your speech being dictated, per se; it's about being polite. Like, there's nothing stopping me from hurling fanciful insults at everybody I meet, but I

by chc 9y ago

It's not your speech being dictated, per se; it's about being polite. Like, there's nothing stopping me from hurling fanciful insults at everybody I meet, but I also wouldn't blame other people for considering me wrong to do so.

an27 9y ago
It is about your speech being dictated though, it's already been written into law in Canada. If you misgender someone you can go to jail.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
  Huh, could you link to the law?
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    They're referring to C-16, but the idea that it criminalizes speech is bogus. The law only steps in if it's happening in the context of employment, public accomodations, etc. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-ca...
  - grzm 9y ago
    Likely they're referring to https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ I'm providing this to be helpful. Discussions on this on HN have historically devolved incredibly quickly into flamewars. Anyone choosing to discuss this I ask that you reflect on why you want to do so: are you looking to truly understand what others think on this? Are you truly open to having your opinion changed? Are you hoping to convince others of your position? Shout down those you disagree with? If you're looking for something other than truly productive, respectful, thoughtful, charitable discussion, please refrain from commenting here.
    - chc 9y ago
      For anyone who thinks this is a legitimate concern, just click through and read the full text of the bill. It's like one page long and has zero mentions of pronouns. All it does is extend the same protections to gender identity that already exist for things like race, age, religion and disability.
  - zo1 9y ago
    Here's one that is being written into South African law currently. http://rationalstandard.com/hate-speech-bill-road-hell-paved-good-intentions/ http://rationalstandard.com/hate-speech-bill-road-hell-paved... Full text of the bill: http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/bills/2016-HateCrimes-HateSpeechBill.pdf http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/bills/2016-HateCrimes-... And I'm pretty sure that choosing the wrong pronoun purposefully when referring to a person, in front of them, would then fall under the category of "hate speech" through this bill.
    - chc 9y ago
      I am not familiar with how these sorts of things are commonly interpreted in South Africa, but the it doesn't sound like that from a reading of the text. Why do you think it would extend to referring to a person with the wrong pronoun? It seems to define "hate speech" as speech that threatens or incites further harmful action, not merely offensive speech, and acknowledges constitutional protection for speech that does not "constitute incitement to cause harm."
      - zo1 9y ago
        It's a bit buried, the important part is in section 4, this one: Any person who intentionally, by means of any communication whatsoever, communicates to one or more persons in a manner that [...] is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of persons. Further down: [...] which demonstrates a clear intention [...] to [...] bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons, based on race, gender, sex, which includes intersex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, disability, HIV status, nationality, gender identity [...] is guilty of the offence of hate speech. So the definition of hate-speech, which carries a criminal penalty of up-to 3-10 years, now includes communication that is "abusive or insulting". Which is a very vague concept, and I don't think there is any clear expansion on it in the bill itself. Hopefully the wording changes before it gets passed. Otherwise I'm going to have to take my family out of this country for fear of political persecution. What else do you call it when insult and ridicule against groups becomes hate-speech. Edit. Fixed penalty years, up to.
xupybd 9y ago
I also find it better to say the author when commenting on articles. In cases like this it's a famous person so not so important, but generally I haven't taken the time to find out who the author is.
Karunamon 9y ago
For whatever it's worth, given that: 1. Manning's leaks didn't really reveal anything useful 2. They weren't carefully released or curated in the same way that Snowden's were. 3. Manning can't be negatively impacted by my words on Hacker News ...I don't really respect that person enough to give a flip how they want me to refer to them. Bradley was the name I heard in the media throughout most of this, Bradley is still what's stuck in my mind, I don't give enough care about their opinion or PC-ness in general to mentally correct myself every time the thought comes up.

by chc 9y ago

an27 9y ago

It is about your speech being dictated though, it's already been written into law in Canada. If you misgender someone you can go to jail.

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
Huh, could you link to the law?
- Karunamon 9y ago
  They're referring to C-16, but the idea that it criminalizes speech is bogus. The law only steps in if it's happening in the context of employment, public accomodations, etc. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-ca...
- grzm 9y ago
  Likely they're referring to https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ I'm providing this to be helpful. Discussions on this on HN have historically devolved incredibly quickly into flamewars. Anyone choosing to discuss this I ask that you reflect on why you want to do so: are you looking to truly understand what others think on this? Are you truly open to having your opinion changed? Are you hoping to convince others of your position? Shout down those you disagree with? If you're looking for something other than truly productive, respectful, thoughtful, charitable discussion, please refrain from commenting here.
  - chc 9y ago
    For anyone who thinks this is a legitimate concern, just click through and read the full text of the bill. It's like one page long and has zero mentions of pronouns. All it does is extend the same protections to gender identity that already exist for things like race, age, religion and disability.
- zo1 9y ago
  Here's one that is being written into South African law currently. http://rationalstandard.com/hate-speech-bill-road-hell-paved-good-intentions/ http://rationalstandard.com/hate-speech-bill-road-hell-paved... Full text of the bill: http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/bills/2016-HateCrimes-HateSpeechBill.pdf http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/bills/2016-HateCrimes-... And I'm pretty sure that choosing the wrong pronoun purposefully when referring to a person, in front of them, would then fall under the category of "hate speech" through this bill.
  - chc 9y ago
    I am not familiar with how these sorts of things are commonly interpreted in South Africa, but the it doesn't sound like that from a reading of the text. Why do you think it would extend to referring to a person with the wrong pronoun? It seems to define "hate speech" as speech that threatens or incites further harmful action, not merely offensive speech, and acknowledges constitutional protection for speech that does not "constitute incitement to cause harm."
    - zo1 9y ago
      It's a bit buried, the important part is in section 4, this one: Any person who intentionally, by means of any communication whatsoever, communicates to one or more persons in a manner that [...] is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of persons. Further down: [...] which demonstrates a clear intention [...] to [...] bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons, based on race, gender, sex, which includes intersex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, disability, HIV status, nationality, gender identity [...] is guilty of the offence of hate speech. So the definition of hate-speech, which carries a criminal penalty of up-to 3-10 years, now includes communication that is "abusive or insulting". Which is a very vague concept, and I don't think there is any clear expansion on it in the bill itself. Hopefully the wording changes before it gets passed. Otherwise I'm going to have to take my family out of this country for fear of political persecution. What else do you call it when insult and ridicule against groups becomes hate-speech. Edit. Fixed penalty years, up to.

xupybd 9y ago

I also find it better to say the author when commenting on articles. In cases like this it's a famous person so not so important, but generally I haven't taken the time to find out who the author is.

Karunamon 9y ago

For whatever it's worth, given that: 1. Manning's leaks didn't really reveal anything useful 2. They weren't carefully released or curated in the same way that Snowden's were. 3. Manning can't be negatively impacted by my words on Hacker News ...I don't really respect that person enough to give a flip how they want me to refer to them. Bradley was the name I heard in the media throughout most of this, Bradley is still what's stuck in my mind, I don't give enough care about their opinion or PC-ness in general to mentally correct myself every time the thought comes up.