5 ms·

> I read your moral position here as "if you are too frail to resist someone's words, you don't deserve protection from their verbal abuse with malicious intent

> I read your moral position here as "if you are too frail to resist someone's words, you don't deserve protection from their verbal abuse with malicious intent" I’m not the original parent, but I read (and share) the position as: Barring intent by the speaker to inflict direct and immediate physical harm, if you are too frail to maintain your mental health in the face of someone else’s speech (or you pretend to be), then you are not served — and neither is justice, fairness, or truth — by the state applying its monopoly on violence to forcibly silence others at your behest. Instead, each individual is personally responsible for their own mental well-being, while the state’s responsibility extends no further than offering services and support to help enable your own individual resiliency.

floatingatoll 5y ago
In the case of the UK's laws, they are targeting people with specific intent to cause psychological harm. That's a critical component of "trolling": if no harm was caused to the abused party, then the trolls wouldn't bother, because they're fixated on hurting others for personal pleasure. So, then, "barring intent" is an invalid condition for this discussion, right?
- teakettle42 5y ago
  I said direct and immediate physical harm. “Psychological harm” is something else entirely. Your position presupposes the guilt and innocence of both parties. The individual claiming “psychological harm” can just as easily be the perpetrator, and psychological harm will be inflicted on the victim by the state when they’re arrested for upsetting someone with narcissistic personality disorder.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    I do not presuppose guilt or innocence, but a claim must be made in order to reach a judgment on either, so all claims are presupposed in that sense. It seems unlikely that a UK court would reach such a judgment in favor of the perpetrator, as opposed to simply jailing them.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  What constitutes intent when it comes to words? Do you have some magical device that enables you to extract intent from people's heads? I thought tru-crime was just science fiction and yet we have multiple individuals actually supporting a dystopian future where that's a real thing.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    It’s not necessarily magical, but we call those devices “judges” and “juries” here in the states, referring to those whose roles in the legal system include judging someone’s intentions. They usually do so without widespread access to telepathy or divination, and so too their UK counterparts.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      There are problems with that system aside from that. The UK specifically will always have to content the case when they put a fine on someone making a pup doing an unfavorable gesture as a joke. It wasn't a good joke in itself, but it really lived by the reaction.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      They judge "intentions" after a physical crime has been committed using those intentions to come up with appropriate punishment. They do not place judgement on intention alone. There's a clear difference.
      - floatingatoll 5y ago
        Incorrect. Judges regularly evaluate the intentions of non-criminals where no crime has been committed in family courts and in cases of contract law (disagreement is not unlawful), and juries have the ability of jury equity (UK) or nullification (US) to declare someone's actions as non-criminal even if the actions they are accused of are accepted as fact and are (by definition of law) unlawful. There is also "contempt of court", in which a judge may declare anyone criminal for refusing to comply with the judge's orders. This all demonstrates that judges and juries are familiar with evaluating intentions and criminality within the frameworks of law provided. A framework of law may declare certain speech as unlawful (such as obscenity or slander) may declare intentions a key factor in criminality, and the systems of law that judge the legality and criminality of that speech are already in place in the UK (and US) to support laws that criminalize speech with malicious intent.

floatingatoll 5y ago

In the case of the UK's laws, they are targeting people with specific intent to cause psychological harm. That's a critical component of "trolling": if no harm was caused to the abused party, then the trolls wouldn't bother, because they're fixated on hurting others for personal pleasure. So, then, "barring intent" is an invalid condition for this discussion, right?

teakettle42 5y ago
I said direct and immediate physical harm. “Psychological harm” is something else entirely. Your position presupposes the guilt and innocence of both parties. The individual claiming “psychological harm” can just as easily be the perpetrator, and psychological harm will be inflicted on the victim by the state when they’re arrested for upsetting someone with narcissistic personality disorder.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  I do not presuppose guilt or innocence, but a claim must be made in order to reach a judgment on either, so all claims are presupposed in that sense. It seems unlikely that a UK court would reach such a judgment in favor of the perpetrator, as opposed to simply jailing them.
CountDrewku 5y ago
What constitutes intent when it comes to words? Do you have some magical device that enables you to extract intent from people's heads? I thought tru-crime was just science fiction and yet we have multiple individuals actually supporting a dystopian future where that's a real thing.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  It’s not necessarily magical, but we call those devices “judges” and “juries” here in the states, referring to those whose roles in the legal system include judging someone’s intentions. They usually do so without widespread access to telepathy or divination, and so too their UK counterparts.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    There are problems with that system aside from that. The UK specifically will always have to content the case when they put a fine on someone making a pup doing an unfavorable gesture as a joke. It wasn't a good joke in itself, but it really lived by the reaction.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    They judge "intentions" after a physical crime has been committed using those intentions to come up with appropriate punishment. They do not place judgement on intention alone. There's a clear difference.
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      Incorrect. Judges regularly evaluate the intentions of non-criminals where no crime has been committed in family courts and in cases of contract law (disagreement is not unlawful), and juries have the ability of jury equity (UK) or nullification (US) to declare someone's actions as non-criminal even if the actions they are accused of are accepted as fact and are (by definition of law) unlawful. There is also "contempt of court", in which a judge may declare anyone criminal for refusing to comply with the judge's orders. This all demonstrates that judges and juries are familiar with evaluating intentions and criminality within the frameworks of law provided. A framework of law may declare certain speech as unlawful (such as obscenity or slander) may declare intentions a key factor in criminality, and the systems of law that judge the legality and criminality of that speech are already in place in the UK (and US) to support laws that criminalize speech with malicious intent.