6 ms·

'Anti-meme law' could see Mexicans jailed for posting insulting images

62 points by spking 8y ago

IronWolve 8y ago
Memes and Editorial/Political cartoons have been our oldest way of poking fun at government officials, of course they would want to ban them, and bullying is the perfect cover to do it. Think of the children!
zaroth 8y ago
Is there a defining feature of this (or other) cyber bullying laws that make them antithetical to freedom of expression and the tools of oppressive regimes, rather than laws which promote more civil and effective discourse in the public sphere? I want to say trolling is somewhat like obscenity—in that you know it when you see it—but that is a deeply unsatisfying response when so much discourse online is so polarized. Because it’s Ok for me to disagree with, even hate and detest, what someone is saying. It’s Ok for me to shocked and angered and deeply offended by a thing you say. It’s not Ok for me to go around clubbing people when they do this. I think the current laws on libel, defamation, and slander are appropriate and fairly functional. Public figures in particular have a higher burden as well they should. The new generation of anti-speech laws here and in the UK I find are deeply flawed and dangerous, and appear to me to be tools of oppression rather than the opposite.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- danShumway 8y ago
  > in that you know it when you see it I would contend that one takeaway from companies like Facebook is that this phrase doesn't actually hold up all that well on a global Internet. Facebook originally classified breast-feeding as explicit. At the time there was actual controversy about whether or not it fit into that category (public perception now is mostly that it didn't). Facebook's shift from "no pornography" to "here's a giant document about exactly what is and isn't pornography down to the number of nipples you show" feels to me like the white flag of a company that has decided it no longer knows it when it sees it. I think "you know it when you see it" works very well for small, tight-nit communities, and maybe not quite so well as soon as as you start operating on the scale of a country. On that scale, I kind of prefer the narrower definitions we have on stuff like libel and slander.
  - eindiran 8y ago
    I think the problem there is that "you know it when you see it" scales poorly. Humans are (usually) reasonably good at handling "you know it when you see it" heuristics, even if there is disagreement on edge cases. But "you know it when you see it" is difficult to implement algorithmically, and handling content at the scale of Facebook requires that you have algorithmic processes in place to automatically handle most of the firehose.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      I think the problem there is that different communities have completely different standards for what pornography (or any other category) is, but Facebook is hoping that they'll all use the same Facebook. Scaling any one group's definition of pornography to the rest of the world won't work even if the technical aspects of scaling go perfectly. You have two (...billion) people who all "know it when they see it", but consistently make different judgements when shown the same content.
  - msla 8y ago
    The problem with "you know it when you see it", even in tight-knit communities, is that it's used to shut down discussion: If you know it when you see it, then it's obvious, and if you're trying to argue the point, well, only a troll argues the obvious, innit? Nobody could disagree in good faith, so the only conclusion is that you're trying to make trouble and should be shut down. It's logically indefensible, in that there isn't enough to it to make a logical case to defend it, which means the people proposing ideas like these must believe that either their ideas are so widely shared that nobody would ever try to attack it, or that they'll be able to destroy anyone who does attack it through means other than calm, logical argumentation. That second possibility frightens me.
    - LinuxBender 8y ago
      I know a group of people that are sexually aroused by seeing someones eyes. It is not a small or fringe group. There is another even larger group that are aroused by feet. What are we to do about the feet pictures and videos? There is a sub-group among them that are further aroused by sharing pictures of child feet on facebook. Something about doing that in public makes it more exciting for them.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I want to say trolling is somewhat like obscenity—in that you know it when you see it Depends. What an American considers obscenity and what an Italian or French or Japanese person can be very different.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > Is there a defining feature of this (or other) cyber bullying laws that make them antithetical to freedom of expression and the tools of oppressive regimes If the law is in regard to protecting how people feel (which implicitly controls how they think), it will be used to enforce what can be said. That's the only tool you need for oppression. If it's to limit exposure to ideas, like pornography or explosive manufacture, it's ironically less oppressive because it's more objective than "how random human might feel on a given day".
- tracker1 8y ago
  There's no right to "more civil and effective discourse in the public sphere" and while I'm not an apologist for assholes, the freedom to offend is essential in terms of those in power responding to the populace at large. Yes, some individual might be bullied, and if they want to constrain it to "those not serving in public office, management in a government position, or celebrity status" I might be willing to consider it. But that would be way more tight in wording than any legislature is likely to introduce. In the end it's another law to control mindshare. With liberty and freedom comes things you may not like, but liberty is far more important than protecting people who don't know how to handle getting their feelings hurt.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Freedom to offend, hell yes. But there is an issue when someone is directly inciting to hatred and violence against targeted groups or individuals. That sort of betavior needs to be acted against. The problem then is that the hatemongers actively try to skirt as close as they possibly can to the line without crossing it, with dogwhistle terms and other tricks. I don't have a perfect solution, and I don't think we'll find one. When you've literally got people calling for named individuals to be thrown from planes, that is clearly out of bounds, though.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      You should directly incite hatred towards groups that deserve it.
      - KozmoNau7 8y ago
        But then who gets to decide which groups deserve to be legitimate targets for hatred? Exactly, you cannot do that without bias.
        8y ago
ShlomoGrinberg 8y ago
If the last name of the congressman who proposed this is Kirsch, then I support this law. I'm sure it's for the betterment of our society.
GatoVolador 8y ago
Mexicans jailed... and the problem is?
riffic 8y ago
Mexico does not seem very friendly to freedom of expression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Mexico https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/mexico https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/mexico
barnesto 8y ago
not surprising considering the leanings of the new administration. AMLO is more of a socialist than populist.
- naringas 8y ago
  your assesment is pretty imprecise. AMLO has got nothing to do with this, he isn't even in office yet (though it kinda seems like he already is). this is really just a proposed law from a state legislature.
- throwaway4job 8y ago
  Borrow some fucking integrity. AMLO doesn't even take office for two more months. This law has nothing to do with him.
emodendroket 8y ago
Well, it sounds like it has no chance of passing because both the outgoing and incoming mayor have pledged to veto it. Unless I missed something.
silencemeban 8y ago
It used to be heresy to speak against the church. Apparently now wrong think against leftist dogma is the new heresy.
hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
"There were 25,339 homicides in Mexico [in 2017], a 23% jump from 2016 and the highest number since at least 1997, the year the government began tracking the data." (CNN) Good to see that the Mexican government is focusing on what's important.
- Slorg 8y ago
  They need to stop it before the first memecidio happens.

62 points by spking 8y ago

Memes and Editorial/Political cartoons have been our oldest way of poking fun at government officials, of course they would want to ban them, and bullying is the perfect cover to do it. Think of the children!

zaroth 8y ago

Is there a defining feature of this (or other) cyber bullying laws that make them antithetical to freedom of expression and the tools of oppressive regimes, rather than laws which promote more civil and effective discourse in the public sphere? I want to say trolling is somewhat like obscenity—in that you know it when you see it—but that is a deeply unsatisfying response when so much discourse online is so polarized. Because it’s Ok for me to disagree with, even hate and detest, what someone is saying. It’s Ok for me to shocked and angered and deeply offended by a thing you say. It’s not Ok for me to go around clubbing people when they do this. I think the current laws on libel, defamation, and slander are appropriate and fairly functional. Public figures in particular have a higher burden as well they should. The new generation of anti-speech laws here and in the UK I find are deeply flawed and dangerous, and appear to me to be tools of oppression rather than the opposite.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
danShumway 8y ago
> in that you know it when you see it I would contend that one takeaway from companies like Facebook is that this phrase doesn't actually hold up all that well on a global Internet. Facebook originally classified breast-feeding as explicit. At the time there was actual controversy about whether or not it fit into that category (public perception now is mostly that it didn't). Facebook's shift from "no pornography" to "here's a giant document about exactly what is and isn't pornography down to the number of nipples you show" feels to me like the white flag of a company that has decided it no longer knows it when it sees it. I think "you know it when you see it" works very well for small, tight-nit communities, and maybe not quite so well as soon as as you start operating on the scale of a country. On that scale, I kind of prefer the narrower definitions we have on stuff like libel and slander.
- eindiran 8y ago
  I think the problem there is that "you know it when you see it" scales poorly. Humans are (usually) reasonably good at handling "you know it when you see it" heuristics, even if there is disagreement on edge cases. But "you know it when you see it" is difficult to implement algorithmically, and handling content at the scale of Facebook requires that you have algorithmic processes in place to automatically handle most of the firehose.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    I think the problem there is that different communities have completely different standards for what pornography (or any other category) is, but Facebook is hoping that they'll all use the same Facebook. Scaling any one group's definition of pornography to the rest of the world won't work even if the technical aspects of scaling go perfectly. You have two (...billion) people who all "know it when they see it", but consistently make different judgements when shown the same content.
- msla 8y ago
  The problem with "you know it when you see it", even in tight-knit communities, is that it's used to shut down discussion: If you know it when you see it, then it's obvious, and if you're trying to argue the point, well, only a troll argues the obvious, innit? Nobody could disagree in good faith, so the only conclusion is that you're trying to make trouble and should be shut down. It's logically indefensible, in that there isn't enough to it to make a logical case to defend it, which means the people proposing ideas like these must believe that either their ideas are so widely shared that nobody would ever try to attack it, or that they'll be able to destroy anyone who does attack it through means other than calm, logical argumentation. That second possibility frightens me.
  - LinuxBender 8y ago
    I know a group of people that are sexually aroused by seeing someones eyes. It is not a small or fringe group. There is another even larger group that are aroused by feet. What are we to do about the feet pictures and videos? There is a sub-group among them that are further aroused by sharing pictures of child feet on facebook. Something about doing that in public makes it more exciting for them.
coldtea 8y ago
>I want to say trolling is somewhat like obscenity—in that you know it when you see it Depends. What an American considers obscenity and what an Italian or French or Japanese person can be very different.
ArchTypical 8y ago
> Is there a defining feature of this (or other) cyber bullying laws that make them antithetical to freedom of expression and the tools of oppressive regimes If the law is in regard to protecting how people feel (which implicitly controls how they think), it will be used to enforce what can be said. That's the only tool you need for oppression. If it's to limit exposure to ideas, like pornography or explosive manufacture, it's ironically less oppressive because it's more objective than "how random human might feel on a given day".
tracker1 8y ago
There's no right to "more civil and effective discourse in the public sphere" and while I'm not an apologist for assholes, the freedom to offend is essential in terms of those in power responding to the populace at large. Yes, some individual might be bullied, and if they want to constrain it to "those not serving in public office, management in a government position, or celebrity status" I might be willing to consider it. But that would be way more tight in wording than any legislature is likely to introduce. In the end it's another law to control mindshare. With liberty and freedom comes things you may not like, but liberty is far more important than protecting people who don't know how to handle getting their feelings hurt.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Freedom to offend, hell yes. But there is an issue when someone is directly inciting to hatred and violence against targeted groups or individuals. That sort of betavior needs to be acted against. The problem then is that the hatemongers actively try to skirt as close as they possibly can to the line without crossing it, with dogwhistle terms and other tricks. I don't have a perfect solution, and I don't think we'll find one. When you've literally got people calling for named individuals to be thrown from planes, that is clearly out of bounds, though.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    You should directly incite hatred towards groups that deserve it.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      But then who gets to decide which groups deserve to be legitimate targets for hatred? Exactly, you cannot do that without bias.
      - 8y ago

ShlomoGrinberg 8y ago

If the last name of the congressman who proposed this is Kirsch, then I support this law. I'm sure it's for the betterment of our society.

GatoVolador 8y ago

Mexicans jailed... and the problem is?

riffic 8y ago

Mexico does not seem very friendly to freedom of expression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Mexico https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/mexico https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/mexico

barnesto 8y ago

not surprising considering the leanings of the new administration. AMLO is more of a socialist than populist.

naringas 8y ago
your assesment is pretty imprecise. AMLO has got nothing to do with this, he isn't even in office yet (though it kinda seems like he already is). this is really just a proposed law from a state legislature.
throwaway4job 8y ago
Borrow some fucking integrity. AMLO doesn't even take office for two more months. This law has nothing to do with him.

emodendroket 8y ago

Well, it sounds like it has no chance of passing because both the outgoing and incoming mayor have pledged to veto it. Unless I missed something.

silencemeban 8y ago

It used to be heresy to speak against the church. Apparently now wrong think against leftist dogma is the new heresy.

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago

"There were 25,339 homicides in Mexico [in 2017], a 23% jump from 2016 and the highest number since at least 1997, the year the government began tracking the data." (CNN) Good to see that the Mexican government is focusing on what's important.

Slorg 8y ago
They need to stop it before the first memecidio happens.