4 ms·

Is inciting people to violence really anything other than expressing the opinion that violence is a good idea, and trying to persuade others to agree? Expressin

by b6 9y ago

Is inciting people to violence really anything other than expressing the opinion that violence is a good idea, and trying to persuade others to agree? Expressing any opinion should be allowed, and trying to persuade anyone of anything should be allowed.

robbiep 9y ago
Is it right that in civil society someone stands on a soapbox and calls for violence against a person or people? Witness Pres. Trump at his rallies. Not illegal but Really, telling a mob to punch someone is pretty off colour and not the sort of thing that we should be promoting. There are ways to express your opinion on any issue that don’t lead to vilification and potential or actual harm. So I disagree. It isn’t right to form a gang on the street and attack someone, and it isn’t right to form a gang on the internet and incite violence, or strongly disrespect a person or people. Even if you take at first step the difference between actual physical harm VS a ‘bytes on the internet’ approach, the mental health harms to the persecuted group are real and have lead to suicides in individual examples, or actual violence as demonstrated in the article. Speaking from a medical perspective, I don’t draw a difference between physical and mental harm (precious snowflaking aside). Sure it’s a grey area but carte Blanche in this domain is damaging.
- pluma 9y ago
  Freedom of expression is meaningless unless you have the social/political power to back that expression up. If Joe Blow tweets "kill the kikes", nobody cares. If someone with millions of devout followers says the same, there will eventually be blood. Or in your case, if a person with influence tells their fan club to harass someone, the victim may suffer actual mental health issues when enough of them act on it.
  - psyc 9y ago
    I simply disagree that the speaking is a good place to insert the pre-emptive legal monkey-wrench. It's paranoid. The idea that you can keep ideological genies in their bottles by zipping people's lips is superstitious, like something a schoolchild would believe. It's obvious Germany is overcompensating here out of national shame. The whole idea seems to be: murder and genocide are so bad, that any legislation that either statistically reduces them, or even just seems like it might do, is worth it. I'll grant that I can see how a reasonable person might think this. Then it's a question of values. Remember that one of our great American heroes literally said, "Give me liberty, or give me death," immediately after doubting that life is dear enough, or peace sweet enough, in themselves. As far as that goes, I'm old and it saddens me that we keep going from one oppressive cultural regime to another. When I was young, there were also things you couldn't say, they were just different things. But I will say that this is the first time in my life that freedom of speech itself has been explicitly challenged by a significant bloc in the US.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      > The idea that you can keep ideological genies in their bottles You're misunderstanding what the idea is. The idea is to show german children: That person has that opinion and they may think it, but the opinion is wrong. We had a huge big argument over it, some people call it WW2, and the result was: Their opinion is wrong. So we decided to let that be the last argument about it and not let them start another argument, because the question has been answered at length.
      - psyc 9y ago
        The law in question is explicitly geared towards incitement to hatred against groups of people, not towards wrong opinions.
        pluma 9y ago
        It's amazing to how great lengths you are willing to go to defend people's right to call for women and children be shot at the border.
        psyc 9y ago
        Pretty specific words to be putting in my mouth. You're the biggest agitator in this thread. I'm out.
        dang 9y ago
        Would you please stop using HN for political flamewar? It's one thing to post substantive arguments like you did earlier in the thread, and quite another to stoop to this level of internet sludge. If you can't resist that slippery slope, please don't post in the first place. The same goes for all other users of course. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        pluma 9y ago
        Sorry if this came across as hyperbolic. I was referencing one of the original comments made by a German far-right politician on Facebook that started the debate about the responsibility of platforms like Facebook in moderating hate speech which in turn resulted in the law the article describes: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faz.net%2Faktuell%2Fpolitik%2Ffluechtlingskrise%2Fbeatrix-von-storch-afd-vizechefin-will-polizei-sogar-auf-kinder-schiessen-lassen-14044186.html&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr... It's not a slippery slope in this case. I admit it's a bit unfair to reduce psyc's argument to this but the language the law covers is entirely in the category of "people openly demanding that certain other people be killed or subjected to violence". Facebook dragged their feet to moderate comments like these and the law is a response to create a legal tool to force companies like Facebook to moderate hate speech or face serious fines.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Really? You're fine with saying that people of this or that demographic subgroup should be systematically exterminated? We've already been down that road once with rather tragic consequences. It's true, I'm advocating some limits on people's freedoms. I don't think people should enjoy the freedom to launch campaigns of genocide, for example.

by b6 9y ago

robbiep 9y ago

Is it right that in civil society someone stands on a soapbox and calls for violence against a person or people? Witness Pres. Trump at his rallies. Not illegal but Really, telling a mob to punch someone is pretty off colour and not the sort of thing that we should be promoting. There are ways to express your opinion on any issue that don’t lead to vilification and potential or actual harm. So I disagree. It isn’t right to form a gang on the street and attack someone, and it isn’t right to form a gang on the internet and incite violence, or strongly disrespect a person or people. Even if you take at first step the difference between actual physical harm VS a ‘bytes on the internet’ approach, the mental health harms to the persecuted group are real and have lead to suicides in individual examples, or actual violence as demonstrated in the article. Speaking from a medical perspective, I don’t draw a difference between physical and mental harm (precious snowflaking aside). Sure it’s a grey area but carte Blanche in this domain is damaging.

pluma 9y ago
Freedom of expression is meaningless unless you have the social/political power to back that expression up. If Joe Blow tweets "kill the kikes", nobody cares. If someone with millions of devout followers says the same, there will eventually be blood. Or in your case, if a person with influence tells their fan club to harass someone, the victim may suffer actual mental health issues when enough of them act on it.
- psyc 9y ago
  I simply disagree that the speaking is a good place to insert the pre-emptive legal monkey-wrench. It's paranoid. The idea that you can keep ideological genies in their bottles by zipping people's lips is superstitious, like something a schoolchild would believe. It's obvious Germany is overcompensating here out of national shame. The whole idea seems to be: murder and genocide are so bad, that any legislation that either statistically reduces them, or even just seems like it might do, is worth it. I'll grant that I can see how a reasonable person might think this. Then it's a question of values. Remember that one of our great American heroes literally said, "Give me liberty, or give me death," immediately after doubting that life is dear enough, or peace sweet enough, in themselves. As far as that goes, I'm old and it saddens me that we keep going from one oppressive cultural regime to another. When I was young, there were also things you couldn't say, they were just different things. But I will say that this is the first time in my life that freedom of speech itself has been explicitly challenged by a significant bloc in the US.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    > The idea that you can keep ideological genies in their bottles You're misunderstanding what the idea is. The idea is to show german children: That person has that opinion and they may think it, but the opinion is wrong. We had a huge big argument over it, some people call it WW2, and the result was: Their opinion is wrong. So we decided to let that be the last argument about it and not let them start another argument, because the question has been answered at length.
    - psyc 9y ago
      The law in question is explicitly geared towards incitement to hatred against groups of people, not towards wrong opinions.
      - pluma 9y ago
        It's amazing to how great lengths you are willing to go to defend people's right to call for women and children be shot at the border.
        psyc 9y ago
        Pretty specific words to be putting in my mouth. You're the biggest agitator in this thread. I'm out.
        dang 9y ago
        Would you please stop using HN for political flamewar? It's one thing to post substantive arguments like you did earlier in the thread, and quite another to stoop to this level of internet sludge. If you can't resist that slippery slope, please don't post in the first place. The same goes for all other users of course. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        pluma 9y ago
        Sorry if this came across as hyperbolic. I was referencing one of the original comments made by a German far-right politician on Facebook that started the debate about the responsibility of platforms like Facebook in moderating hate speech which in turn resulted in the law the article describes: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faz.net%2Faktuell%2Fpolitik%2Ffluechtlingskrise%2Fbeatrix-von-storch-afd-vizechefin-will-polizei-sogar-auf-kinder-schiessen-lassen-14044186.html&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr... It's not a slippery slope in this case. I admit it's a bit unfair to reduce psyc's argument to this but the language the law covers is entirely in the category of "people openly demanding that certain other people be killed or subjected to violence". Facebook dragged their feet to moderate comments like these and the law is a response to create a legal tool to force companies like Facebook to moderate hate speech or face serious fines.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Really? You're fine with saying that people of this or that demographic subgroup should be systematically exterminated? We've already been down that road once with rather tragic consequences. It's true, I'm advocating some limits on people's freedoms. I don't think people should enjoy the freedom to launch campaigns of genocide, for example.