4 ms·
> So we're sending police at the homes of people that say stuff we don't like on the internet? Merely describing it as "stuff we don't like" is either inaccura
by claudiawerner 6y ago
> So we're sending police at the homes of people that say stuff we don't like on the internet?
Merely describing it as "stuff we don't like" is either inaccurate or reductionist, in the same way murder could be described as "actions we don't like", or a threatening letter is "some scribbles we don't like", or child pornography is "some movies we don't like".
The German law may be vague (I don't know), but the bar seems to be higher than "stuff we don't like".
Whether it should be censored is a good question, but it does nobody any good to be reductionist about the content of the speech.
- hoot 6y agoYeah but murder is a very concrete action, while an insult is subjective.
- claudiawerner 6y agoWhat does 'subjective' mean in this context? That its effects can't be examined? In at least a subset of circumstances, they can be (unless having or not having, say, PTSD, is 'subjective'). Psychological evaluations in the legal system are much like physiological ones. Let's say somebody has a sensetive finger, and breaking it causes extreme pain, according to that person. Assuming something like the eggshell skull rule still holds, should we dismiss his complaint or treat it as lesser because his pain is 'subjective'? All harms are subjective, and not all actions result in equal harm to the victim. A concert pianist is arguably harmed more by having his fingers broken than an English teacher is. A professor once said he'd rather someone break his leg instead of a student falsely accuse him of sexual assault.