6 ms·

I’m amazed at just how open (and wrong) cctv’s recent reply to the nba scandal was: “We are strongly dissatisfied and we oppose Silver’s claim to support Morey

• kaybe 7y ago
  It's a bit more difficult than that, I think. If you look at free speech in Europe for example, in eg Germany there are laws against hate speech or defamation of individual people (quite differentiated, an opinion is ok and true facts are ok, but invented facts are not). One of the targets is Nazi propaganda, and in general the support is good. Still, the goal is similar, social stability, peace and protection of minorities. People do not get disappeared, but they do get sued.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    I sympathize with the idea, but how does one define hate speech? Couldn't The CCP claim that any speech in support of Hong Kong is speech in hate of The CCP? Limiting speech in anyway gets very slippery.
    • drucik 7y ago
      Oxford defines as follows: “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.” And it seems to be a general definition, I think sometimes it’s narrowed to threats or to calls for violence, I suppose? Let’s not act as if that’s an unimaginable term.
      • throwaway92747 7y ago
        The problem isn't that it's an unimaginable term; the problem is that every single person imagines it differently. Your definition of hate speech and my definition might be the same for some examples and drastically different for others. For some people, saying "men are not women" is considered hate speech, while others would say it has nothing to do with hate speech. Hate speech is inherently subjective, and banning it always results in the same question: who gets to decide what is hate speech?
        • pugwash 7y ago
          In this particular instance? The German legislative branch drafted and passed the law(s?), and the German judiciary branch interprets it. People who are accused of practising hate speech are given an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Despite the kind of hand-wringing about this that folks such as yourself routinely engage in over this subject, German society has somehow managed to survive and thrive despite this relatively minor limitation on their freedom of speech. They even have some hateful racist shitbags gaining seats in the Bundestag.
        • drucik 7y ago
          Everyone has an opinion, but it doesn’t make a word meaningless. Of course there is some grey area, but if “men are not women” is the best example you can think of, I’m pretty sure most of law-educated people will quickly agree where the line is, if there’s ever a need. ;)
    • thefringthing 7y ago
      Americans: "How could one possibly define hate speech!?" Most countries: Has a fairly clear legal definition of hate speech, in statute or precedent.
  • Nexxxeh 7y ago
    In the UK (Scotland specifically) we had the ridiculous prosecution of Markus "Count Dankula" Meechan. We've certainly not found the right balance over here.
    • NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Read the actual judgement, and it's just about impossible to conclude that the conviction was anything but deserved and perfectly balanced. The judge explicitly asked his defence to explore freedom of expression. He chose not to. The rest of his "defence" was laughable and easily disproved lies. The judge pointed out his failure to explore freedom of expression in his summing up. Short of using neon, how much more clearly could the judge have telegraphed it? The conviction was therefore on pure technical breach of the law with no mitigation. Markus Meechan was left looking like a complete moron who threw away his opportunity of defence. In addition to being a bottom feeding racist. Oh, and a scammer as he crowdsourced a load of money for the defence he didn't bother offering.
      • Nexxxeh 7y ago
        I wouldn't argue that he hasn't committed a crime. My issue is that it's a crime at all. Everything is grossly offensive to someone. I watched the actual video in question, and with regards to the judgement, I disagree that it was menacing, anti-semitic, or racist. The video, if anything, is anti-racist and anti-anti-semitic. It's certainly not threatening to anyone of reasonable mind, unless one considers the pug to be a danger to the Jewish community. It's not painting Nazi atrocities as a positive thing, it's making clear that it's literally the most horrendous thing possible. The judge takes issue with some things having a different impact when part of a joke. >"You accepted that the phrase “* the *” was anti-Semitic though not, you said, when used as part of a joke." It isn't anti-Semitic in context. Did you watch the video?
        • NeedMoreTea 7y ago
          Have you read the whole judgement? I think it's still available as a pdf on the court website. Not the carefully selected snippets and quotes dumped in the media. I recommend it, it's hilarious (at Meecham's expense), and IIRC only a couple of pages. He had a defence. He chose not to use it, despite the judge explicitly encouraging him to. So after the judge points to the exit, he faces the other way and sulks. He deserved conviction. Except we're not nearly done. (From memory) His tale of the joke intended solely for his girlfriend was completely shredded as a pack of lies in court. His girlfriend didn't even subscribe to his channel, or know of his joke. The judge had a better awareness of how Youtube worked than the guy with the channel. In context the "private joke" was for mass distribution and nothing to do with his girlfriend. Now he deserves prosecution for perjury. Moronic and obvious perjury, but perjury nonetheless. So bad I was laughing while reading the judgement. I think perjury carries the lengthier maximum sentence. We're still not done. > It isn't anti-Semitic in context. Did you watch the video? [Yes I did. The judge very clearly states the conviction is on the simple breach of the law. Context and mitigating circumstance is irrelevant as Meecham chose not to use the freedom of expression defence. Thus "in-context" does not matter at all. So forget the pug. Forget the joke, the context, the way he made it totally not funny unless you're seven. It's obviously anti-semitic, but not especially harmful. Meecham accepts it's anti-semitic. It's not threatening compared to a march with dozens of thugs chanting the exact same phrases, into the faces of actual people. The law must cater for both ends of the threat scale being videoed and distributed. Clearly it is reasonable for there to be some offence, and some chance of mitigation for the lesser or technical breaches and parody or humour. Repeating a phrase he accepts as racist, over and over, to clips of Hitler, jews and for some reason Buddha (IIRC, it's been a while), is clearly anti-semitic in context. Clearly it's not threatening on the scale of possibility of people using the same phrase and actions in a different context. Just a feeble joke, but accepted as anti-semitic by Meecham in court nonetheless. Still, he's not on trial for how funny he is or isn't either. This is all 99.9% pointless discussion. None of this section is relevant as it's mitigation that the defendant chose not to use. Were he not a complete moron he would have most likely been reasonably acquitted for freedom of expression.] He was offered an out by the judge in the context of the legal system. Then ignored it. Reading the full judgement warmed my heart and restored a little faith in British justice. OK, he's a moron as well as a convicted criminal, and clearly shown to be a perjurer. End of. I wonder what happened to the thousands he crowdsourced for his defence, but no-defence-offered really.
• dmoy 7y ago
  > China is basically no different than it was under Mao This is very much not true. For one, there's rampant consumer capitalism, very little social net, no tens of millions starving to death, and something like 10-100x more personal income. I don't know if you have family that grew up under Mao or not that you can go check with, but, this is a really, really false statement to make. I'm not saying it's all peachy now, just that it is a far cry from Mao. I do agree that CCP's statement there about freedom of speech is ridiculous to say about something spoken in the US.
  • thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > This is very much not true. For one, there's rampant consumer capitalism, very little social net, no tens of millions starving to death, and something like 10-100x more personal income. Is this a list of four different differences? Under Mao, when tens of millions of people starved to death, how much of a social net was there?
    • dmoy 7y ago
      Yes four separate differences. Under Mao, despite an ostensibly strong social net, many still starved to death. I intentionally listed those two together because Mao time was not so great for many.
• scruple 7y ago
  The message from Heartstone's official Weibo account read similarly. It reads like it's written by a party member, not some corporate PR employee. It reads like something I'd expect to have come out of the USSR in the 80s. It's all very disturbing. It's also strangely familiar in that regard, and quite frightening when taken from that perspective.
  • mattrp 7y ago
    Oh and now blizzard is preventing users from canceling their accounts?
    • scruple 7y ago
      That's Blizzard America, of course. If I'm not mistaken, there is technically no Blizzard _inside of_ China. They license their IP, etc..., to a Chinese (CCP approved) company-of-sorts who is then responsible for it's dealings inside China. But, yes, something fucky is going on with their account management system, which is actively blocking people from disabling their accounts (via blocking account verification attempts, I believe).
• the_resistence 7y ago
  Pros at orwellian double-speak which allows them to get away with heinous acts.