3 ms·

Yes, But this broad "yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them" is where the devil is. I can consider the downvotes "hate spee

Yes, But this broad "yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them" is where the devil is. I can consider the downvotes "hate speech" because they were targeted at me as a "protected minority," and it does not consider my emotions. I felt very depressed about it, and HN did not make accommodations to make me feel safe expressing it without any prejudice. And I demand it to be removed. How about when people use master and slave names on Tech? -> http://antirez.com/news/122 http://antirez.com/news/122 I feel sick because of my past as a slave descendent. We can find offense and hate in anything if we care to look deep enough. It is more about "WHO" will be censored than about the message. Will it be used to repress science? News? What if News become "hate speech"? Or science?

henearkr 6y ago
But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies. And the example of master/slave is at most insensitivity, not at all hate speech. Hate speech is really more characterized than that. Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning, often using abusive generalisations at each of their sentences... I understand your point though, and I agree, the law itself should be a lot more specific, explicitly.
- superflit 6y ago
  "But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies." That is hate speech, can you see? You can't see it because you are privileged. That is the reason only me as a "protected minority" can relate and say what is or not hate speech against us. You simply can't understand our life experience. --> by simple "twist" I can bend your intent and make you a hater Does the Law have space for replies? Don't think so. Who will decide a reply is good enough? "Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning" I think it is more of "think about the children" slippery slope. You sell it about a "good excuse" then later abuse it. The countries that seems to implement it are doing it most in a way to curb criticism to some govt policies than protecting "groups". Then every criticism about govt policy is "hate speech". E.g: govt decides to give iPhones to X group. If you complain that will be "hate speech"? Again this is very lax and prone to abuse. We as good intended and polite can see it has to be more specific but the "govt" does not. Are we smart than people that make laws everydays? I don't think so. Then I rather not have it. Better hate people for what they think/say than for what they hide.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    Yes, but the point is whether the judge will buy that or not. There already is a crime of hate speech in France, and until now the tribunals do not fall in the traps of the kind of manipulation you emphasize. Of course I hope it will stay this way...

henearkr 6y ago

But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies. And the example of master/slave is at most insensitivity, not at all hate speech. Hate speech is really more characterized than that. Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning, often using abusive generalisations at each of their sentences... I understand your point though, and I agree, the law itself should be a lot more specific, explicitly.

superflit 6y ago
"But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies." That is hate speech, can you see? You can't see it because you are privileged. That is the reason only me as a "protected minority" can relate and say what is or not hate speech against us. You simply can't understand our life experience. --> by simple "twist" I can bend your intent and make you a hater Does the Law have space for replies? Don't think so. Who will decide a reply is good enough? "Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning" I think it is more of "think about the children" slippery slope. You sell it about a "good excuse" then later abuse it. The countries that seems to implement it are doing it most in a way to curb criticism to some govt policies than protecting "groups". Then every criticism about govt policy is "hate speech". E.g: govt decides to give iPhones to X group. If you complain that will be "hate speech"? Again this is very lax and prone to abuse. We as good intended and polite can see it has to be more specific but the "govt" does not. Are we smart than people that make laws everydays? I don't think so. Then I rather not have it. Better hate people for what they think/say than for what they hide.
- henearkr 6y ago
  Yes, but the point is whether the judge will buy that or not. There already is a crime of hate speech in France, and until now the tribunals do not fall in the traps of the kind of manipulation you emphasize. Of course I hope it will stay this way...