5 ms·

Like most European countries today? This slope doesn’t seem particularly slippy

by namdnay 6y ago

jaywalk 6y ago
You mean countries where you can be arrested for a tweet that offends someone? Yeah, no thanks.
- namdnay 6y ago
  Because that’s not already the case in the US? Ask a Muslim friend to post a joke about blowing up JFK and see how long it is until their door is broken down
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    Come on. Threatening to blow up an airport is not in the same ballpark as hurting someone's feelings.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Which European nations have rules against mere "hurting someone's feelings"?
      - kube-system 6y ago
        There are a number of examples of speech laws in the western world that have banned insults. From 1994-2014 the UK had a ban on speech that was "insulting" The UK's Communications Act 2003 section 127 also says: > (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he- > (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent. > (2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he- > (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, > (b) causes such a message to be sent; or > (c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        From Wikipedia on the act: > On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted.
        kube-system 6y ago
        > interim guidelines Implying they already expect to reevaluate this decision? While this statement sounds reasonable at face value, these kind of important distinctions really need to be codified in law, not left up to prosecutorial discretion. Vague speech laws plus a great degree of prosecutorial discretion is exactly how a lot of brutal regimes oppress dissenters while justifying their actions.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Vague speech laws plus a great degree of prosecutorial discretion is exactly how a lot of brutal regimes oppress dissenters while justifying their actions. Sure, but it's also how a lot of non-brutal regimes keep laws from growing out of control with silly edge cases. If you are harassing someone, law enforcement doesn't have to consult the legislated list of 23,784 actions that constitute harassment. That seems reasonable.
        kube-system 6y ago
        Harassment laws are common in the US and don't have to enumerate a large list of different actions that constitute harassment. The clarification that you just quoted above from the Director of Public Prosecutions is only one sentence in length but it would entirely change the meaning of the law, if a clarification like that were actually in it. US harassment laws are not a list of 23,784 actions that constitute harassment either. Here's an example of one state's law. It is clear and specific, something all laws should be: https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      Hate speech is not "hurting someone's feelings".
  - plafl 6y ago
    I doubt you can make a joke about blowing an airport on any country regardless of your religion and don't expect a visit of the police. It's a very clear exception to freedom of speech.
    - namdnay 6y ago
      99% of panic stories about people being arrested for Twitter is this type of stuff
      - syshum 6y ago
        Or you know teaching your dog to raise it paw when you say a phrase, but that is the same as blowing up an airport right?
- egypturnash 6y ago
  Somehow I feel like this is a milder version of "an armed society is a polite society". Everyone has a gun? Rational people are theoretically less likely to try and piss people off, because they know everyone is carrying. It's super-easy to sue people for hate speech? Rational people are theoretically much more likely to consider their words, because they know everyone can get their ass fined and possibly imprisoned. (The obvious problems are of course that not everyone is a perfect rational being with no emotions or extenuating circumstances, and that there are people who will immediately start trying to game any system for profit - goading someone into doing something that gives you an excuse to punish them for Bad Behavior, whether via the gun in your pocket or the State's justice, is an old, old tactic.)
  - pathseeker 6y ago
    >It's super-easy to sue people for hate speech? Rational people are theoretically much more likely to consider their words, because they know everyone can get their ass fined and possibly imprisoned. Hate speech isn't well-defined though. It seems to just be a du jour list of things that upset people too much. What about a picture of a famous slave ship?
RestlessMind 6y ago
> This slope doesn’t seem particularly slippy Then maybe you are not looking hard enough and are unaware of the realities in Europe? Some examples: 1. UK libel regime failing abuse victims: https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=07565660-1393-4528-A4C0-5BDC973F8B7C https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=075... 2. Search for "Notes from the Field: EU Defamation Laws and Journalism", where the International Press Institute (IPI) "takes a closer look at the application of defamation law in EU countries, seeking to illustrate the practical consequences of these laws upon both individual journalists and the free flow of information necessary for democratic governance."

Like most European countries today? This slope doesn’t seem particularly slippy

jaywalk 6y ago

You mean countries where you can be arrested for a tweet that offends someone? Yeah, no thanks.

namdnay 6y ago
Because that’s not already the case in the US? Ask a Muslim friend to post a joke about blowing up JFK and see how long it is until their door is broken down
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Come on. Threatening to blow up an airport is not in the same ballpark as hurting someone's feelings.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Which European nations have rules against mere "hurting someone's feelings"?
    - kube-system 6y ago
      There are a number of examples of speech laws in the western world that have banned insults. From 1994-2014 the UK had a ban on speech that was "insulting" The UK's Communications Act 2003 section 127 also says: > (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he- > (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent. > (2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he- > (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, > (b) causes such a message to be sent; or > (c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        From Wikipedia on the act: > On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted.
        kube-system 6y ago
        > interim guidelines Implying they already expect to reevaluate this decision? While this statement sounds reasonable at face value, these kind of important distinctions really need to be codified in law, not left up to prosecutorial discretion. Vague speech laws plus a great degree of prosecutorial discretion is exactly how a lot of brutal regimes oppress dissenters while justifying their actions.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Vague speech laws plus a great degree of prosecutorial discretion is exactly how a lot of brutal regimes oppress dissenters while justifying their actions. Sure, but it's also how a lot of non-brutal regimes keep laws from growing out of control with silly edge cases. If you are harassing someone, law enforcement doesn't have to consult the legislated list of 23,784 actions that constitute harassment. That seems reasonable.
        kube-system 6y ago
        Harassment laws are common in the US and don't have to enumerate a large list of different actions that constitute harassment. The clarification that you just quoted above from the Director of Public Prosecutions is only one sentence in length but it would entirely change the meaning of the law, if a clarification like that were actually in it. US harassment laws are not a list of 23,784 actions that constitute harassment either. Here's an example of one state's law. It is clear and specific, something all laws should be: https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    Hate speech is not "hurting someone's feelings".
- plafl 6y ago
  I doubt you can make a joke about blowing an airport on any country regardless of your religion and don't expect a visit of the police. It's a very clear exception to freedom of speech.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    99% of panic stories about people being arrested for Twitter is this type of stuff
    - syshum 6y ago
      Or you know teaching your dog to raise it paw when you say a phrase, but that is the same as blowing up an airport right?
egypturnash 6y ago
Somehow I feel like this is a milder version of "an armed society is a polite society". Everyone has a gun? Rational people are theoretically less likely to try and piss people off, because they know everyone is carrying. It's super-easy to sue people for hate speech? Rational people are theoretically much more likely to consider their words, because they know everyone can get their ass fined and possibly imprisoned. (The obvious problems are of course that not everyone is a perfect rational being with no emotions or extenuating circumstances, and that there are people who will immediately start trying to game any system for profit - goading someone into doing something that gives you an excuse to punish them for Bad Behavior, whether via the gun in your pocket or the State's justice, is an old, old tactic.)
- pathseeker 6y ago
  >It's super-easy to sue people for hate speech? Rational people are theoretically much more likely to consider their words, because they know everyone can get their ass fined and possibly imprisoned. Hate speech isn't well-defined though. It seems to just be a du jour list of things that upset people too much. What about a picture of a famous slave ship?

RestlessMind 6y ago

> This slope doesn’t seem particularly slippy Then maybe you are not looking hard enough and are unaware of the realities in Europe? Some examples: 1. UK libel regime failing abuse victims: https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=07565660-1393-4528-A4C0-5BDC973F8B7C https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=075... 2. Search for "Notes from the Field: EU Defamation Laws and Journalism", where the International Press Institute (IPI) "takes a closer look at the application of defamation law in EU countries, seeking to illustrate the practical consequences of these laws upon both individual journalists and the free flow of information necessary for democratic governance."