4 ms·

Couple this news with this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26804977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26804977 . We need not only decentralization and

Couple this news with this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26804977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26804977 . We need not only decentralization and "openness". We need independence. People should be held accountable by lies and defamation they eventually spread but the possibility of publishing information or "personal media" should not be arbitrarily controlled by any government, company or market. Edit: replaced "Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced" by "People should be held accountable by lies and defamation they eventually spread"

blasphemer1234 6y ago
Explain how hate speech laws are different from blasphemy laws and why they should be enforced but blasphemy shouldn't be illegal. I'll wait.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
seriousquestion 6y ago
> Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced > "personal media" should not be arbitrarily controlled This threw an exception, because "hate speech" is an arbitrary type. It has no objective definition. It is defined by whoever happens to be defining it.
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  Not that i agree with the GP comment, but isn't that exactly the point of courts? Eg death threats and all sorts of illegal wording are inaccurate in the literal, programming sense. Humans (courts/etc) interpret and ultimately rule if a set of vague concepts is in violation. If it wasn't for this capability it would be hilariously easy to avoid almost all repercussion from written/spoken word by just adding a dash of vagueness to the subject. Throw in a pinch of speaking in code and you'll never be charged for any crime, yay! I loosely agree with you, but lets not pretend that english is even remotely as well defined as a programming language in all cases.
  - Covzire 6y ago
    The activists entrenched in Silicon Valley know better than the peasants or the courts.
    - adkadskhj 6y ago
      Well i use the term courts loosely here, as it is besides my point - my point was simply that humans _already_ interpret word as allowed or not. We do not allow all english that isn't strictly defined as bad, i thought. I can threaten you in ways that will get me in trouble but are not, by themselves, a threat. English is not that simple. So my point is merely that it seems to be the precedent is already set for humans to moderate human english. It is not a programming language to be parsed and verified.
  - jdasdf 6y ago
    Offloading the problem solving to courts doesn't fix the issue, it just removes your involvement.
    - adkadskhj 6y ago
      I wasn't saying it does, i'm saying _we already have to do that_. Ie, this isn't a new problem. It's a well understood problem, because language is not concrete nor so well defined as to be always explicit.
CWuestefeld 6y ago
Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st Amendment forbids content-based limitations on speech.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of restrictions on free speech before; the First Amendment is not absolute. It is not unthinkable that with changing society and changing judicial review, the USA too may one day find hate speech to be a crime.
  - bluthru 6y ago
    >favour Hello non-American. The Supreme Court has ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment, because of court it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - dexterdog 6y ago
    Hate speech being a crime is not the problem. The power of the arbiter of what defines hate speech is.
    - bityard 6y ago
      In China, "hate speech" includes anything that is critical of the government. I'm very happy that the U.S. has a very high bar for free speech, otherwise we would have been in a very bad spot all throughout the previous presidential administration.
      - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
        Yes. In india criticizing the government lands you in soup for "destroying the social fabric of the country" and "against the interests of the nation". Smh

blasphemer1234 6y ago

Explain how hate speech laws are different from blasphemy laws and why they should be enforced but blasphemy shouldn't be illegal. I'll wait.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

seriousquestion 6y ago

> Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced > "personal media" should not be arbitrarily controlled This threw an exception, because "hate speech" is an arbitrary type. It has no objective definition. It is defined by whoever happens to be defining it.

adkadskhj 6y ago
Not that i agree with the GP comment, but isn't that exactly the point of courts? Eg death threats and all sorts of illegal wording are inaccurate in the literal, programming sense. Humans (courts/etc) interpret and ultimately rule if a set of vague concepts is in violation. If it wasn't for this capability it would be hilariously easy to avoid almost all repercussion from written/spoken word by just adding a dash of vagueness to the subject. Throw in a pinch of speaking in code and you'll never be charged for any crime, yay! I loosely agree with you, but lets not pretend that english is even remotely as well defined as a programming language in all cases.
- Covzire 6y ago
  The activists entrenched in Silicon Valley know better than the peasants or the courts.
  - adkadskhj 6y ago
    Well i use the term courts loosely here, as it is besides my point - my point was simply that humans _already_ interpret word as allowed or not. We do not allow all english that isn't strictly defined as bad, i thought. I can threaten you in ways that will get me in trouble but are not, by themselves, a threat. English is not that simple. So my point is merely that it seems to be the precedent is already set for humans to moderate human english. It is not a programming language to be parsed and verified.
- jdasdf 6y ago
  Offloading the problem solving to courts doesn't fix the issue, it just removes your involvement.
  - adkadskhj 6y ago
    I wasn't saying it does, i'm saying _we already have to do that_. Ie, this isn't a new problem. It's a well understood problem, because language is not concrete nor so well defined as to be always explicit.

CWuestefeld 6y ago

Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st Amendment forbids content-based limitations on speech.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of restrictions on free speech before; the First Amendment is not absolute. It is not unthinkable that with changing society and changing judicial review, the USA too may one day find hate speech to be a crime.
- bluthru 6y ago
  >favour Hello non-American. The Supreme Court has ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment, because of court it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- dexterdog 6y ago
  Hate speech being a crime is not the problem. The power of the arbiter of what defines hate speech is.
  - bityard 6y ago
    In China, "hate speech" includes anything that is critical of the government. I'm very happy that the U.S. has a very high bar for free speech, otherwise we would have been in a very bad spot all throughout the previous presidential administration.
    - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
      Yes. In india criticizing the government lands you in soup for "destroying the social fabric of the country" and "against the interests of the nation". Smh